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.

 

The first world war 7000 years ago?

page: 14
109
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Once you have enriched uranium at a high enough purity, all it takes to create an atomic blast is to hit it with a hammer
No. You need to put enough of it together to reach critical mass.


Yeah. I should have added that part.

If it has a high enough U-235 content and there is enough of it, you don't have to do anything. It will simply set itself off.

But if you get it close to that value, then hitting it with a hammer would be a sufficient trigger.




posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




But if you get it close to that value, then hitting it with a hammer would be a sufficient trigger.
No. You'd just break the uranium if you hit it with a hammer. If anything.

edit on 4/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
Their stagnation might have been caused by climate change. A study done in 2013 suggest that europe faced a 300 year long drought event some 3,200 years ago that destroyed the Greek enpire. Another draught seemingly co-incided with a monsoon hiatus in Asia that lasted for two-three centuries.

Likewise Its been argued that a similar 300-400 year draught event destroyed the Tiwanaku civilization here which would have resulted in wars, as tribes fight each other for their very survival.

These droughts might be cyclic. Destroying civilations, time and time again. Another 300-400 year draught could end our civilization in wars of plunder for food instead of oil.



Does it matter why they blew themselves up with nukes 7k ya?

lol.




posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Dammit, as with most of the subjects on this site, I have nothing to add but belief/faith that this is true. There seems to be archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis, but of course it’s ‘debunked’ by mainstream ‘experts’.



posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Once you have enriched uranium at a high enough purity, all it takes to create an atomic blast is to hit it with a hammer
No. You need to put enough of it together to reach critical mass.


Yeah. I should have added that part.

If it has a high enough U-235 content and there is enough of it, you don't have to do anything. It will simply set itself off.

But if you get it close to that value, then hitting it with a hammer would be a sufficient trigger.



No, it needs to be compressed evenly.

Like what gravity does to ignite a space cloud into a star.

Or better yet, "all these worlds are yours...." after the monoliths ignited jupiter by surrounding it.






posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Byrd


There can't be a sophisticated civilization without a pre-sophisticated civilization. You don't go from "running away from cave lions and hunting deer" to "making digital watches" overnight.



This is something I've been wondering about.

I've been doing some reading on the "elongated skull" finds, some of which are clearly deliberate deformations, and some of which appear to have been natural (due to the actual brain capacity being larger.)



Actually, there aren't any elongated skulls with a cranial capacity larger than the mean for HSS. All of them fall well within the averages for their gender. Furthermore, cranial capacity isn't indicative of that particular organisms level of intelligence. There is direct corrolary between cranial capacity and body mass. Neanderthal for example, while shorter than us, were incredibly strong and had rather large muscle mass adding to their overll body mass. In addition to body mass, how the brain is organized is far more indicative of intelligence amongst other things.

Again, lets look at Neanderthal for our example. Their average cranial capacity was slightly larger than that of HSS, but not by much. However, the structure and organization of their brains was different than ours as it was adapted to surviving on the much harsher climates of Glacial Eurasia. The occipital bun at the back of their heads is considerably larger than our and their eyes are larger and set farther apart. Taking endocranial casts of several Neanderthal has given some more insight into this and what we were able to determine by cross referencing that informtion with data from the recently completed decoding of the Neanderthal genome along with physical measurements of the crania is that their brains were orgnized in a way that allowed them to process visual data more accurattely in much lower light conditions at higher latitudes in Eurasia. They couldn't quite see in the dark but they wouldve made for impressive ninjas!

While this adaptation worked well for them in their very specific ecological niche, it also had some downsides and didn't give tham an advantage at lower latitudes or in warmer climates. It's part of the reason that we only see them move into the Levant and down into Iraq when climate becme colder as a result of incresed glaciation in the north and a semi temperate climate that worked well for Neanderthal extended further south.

When you use larger portions of your brain for something like better visual acuity, there is always a give and take. FOr that advantage, they were forced to give up other areas of the brain like the one that helps with sociability as well as some diminished cognition ompared to us. This made it more difficult for them to adapt to quickly changing environments and more difficult to adapt skill sets from interacting with us. For example, one of the earliest meetings of the 2 sub species of humanity was in the Levant. At the time they first met up, Neanderthal was using Mousterian lithics which were atully much better than the lithics used by the H Spapiens on their way out of Africa. "We" were able to quickly adopt nd improve upon this technology but the Neanderthal weren't mable to pick up some of the skills possessed by the HSS such as using needle and thread to make better fitting clothes where Neanderthal were essentially wrapping themselves in fur and hide from their kills. If they had been able to adapt this new tool set into their repertoire, they may have been able to survive the LGM.

Our(Homo Spiens Spiens) social skills are what allowed us to have the upper hand in the evolutionary lottery. It's why HSS was able to quickly ( on a geological time sale) spread out across the entire globes save for Antarctic. Neanderthal for example, at least in comparison to HSS, lived in smaller groups averaging 15-20 adults compared to HSS which lived in groups double that size. Neanderthal "territory" (where they lived and hunted) was roughly on average 30 sq miles and ours was considerably larger by a factor of 5-10x Sorry for the long winded rant but hopefully it gives people something to think about.


Suppose the Nazis weren't the first to invent eugenics? (Not sure if "invent" is the right word here...)


Unless Plato was a Nazi 2400 years ago, then the Nazi's didn't invent, originate or any pother such thing pertaining to Eugenics.


An ancient civilization discovers animal husbandry, and tries applying it to human kind. Deliberately breeding people with big brains, or maybe just plain smart people (who just so happen to have big brains) until they get a race with huge skulls?


Except that as already noted above, larger brain doesn't mean more intelligent and an elongated skull doesn't actually have a larger than average ranial capacity.


So a community of geniuses wakes up in the middle of the stone age, with nobody to teach them the kind of science we know today, and just starts figuring stuff out.



They could perhaps develop mathematics.


I'm sure that math was a part of humaity's repertoire going bak at least as far as H. Erectus. Chimpanzees, Bonobo's, and Gorillas all demonstrate some basic arithmtic skills and if Neanderthal could navigate their way by boat to islands that were out of their line of sight from mainland then they too likely were using some mathematics


They might become masters of sonic resonance.



And if they did, there would likely be some sort of evidence of such. To the best of my knowledge,m the closest Pleistoene hominids came to mastering sonic resonance was in cradting musical instruments like a flute from bone for example. I have some serious doubts though that they had some magical sonic levitation technology. It's a fun mental exercise but there's no evidence to support suh a thing.



But they would still be living in the "stone age", or *maybe* copper. They wouldn't like discover steel, because the idea of mixing carbon/charcoal with iron is not something you arrive at by intellectual analysis, so much as trial and (perhaps accidental) error. Bronze is better than iron if it isn't steel.


To have smelting and metal working, you need a sedentary lifestyle. It's just not something you can maintain in a hunter/gatherer culture. To make that leap to metal working they must also make the lep from culture to civilization. You need agriculture and animal husbandry, established trade networks. All of those things leave behind a huge footprint in the sand so to speak. There just isnt anything to support this.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous I've been doing some reading on the "elongated skull" finds, some of which are clearly deliberate deformations, and some of which appear to have been natural (due to the actual brain capacity being larger.)

The cranial capacities are, in fact, well within the range of known human cranial capacities.
The claim that they are larger originates with Brien Foerster, and he's simply not being truthful.

You can check this yourself using Foerster's own average capacity number.

Harte



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: X88B88
Dammit, as with most of the subjects on this site, I have nothing to add but belief/faith that this is true. There seems to be archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis, but of course it’s ‘debunked’ by mainstream ‘experts’.

According to you, there seems to be evidence.
However, there is no such evidence - not one iota.

Harte



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Well, none that you'd accept anyway.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: X88B88
a reply to: Harte

Well, none that you'd accept anyway.

Evidence is evidence.
Fantasy is fantasy.

Harte



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: X88B88
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for not posting your fantasy.

Harte



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous I've been doing some reading on the "elongated skull" finds, some of which are clearly deliberate deformations, and some of which appear to have been natural (due to the actual brain capacity being larger.)

The cranial capacities are, in fact, well within the range of known human cranial capacities.
The claim that they are larger originates with Brien Foerster, and he's simply not being truthful.

You can check this yourself using Foerster's own average capacity number.

Harte


This was the best site I found, which deals with elongated skulls in Europe.

www.soul-guidance.com...

And yes, there is a problem saying anything is "25%" bigger than average, because "average" is not well established. And also because modern humans exhibit wide enough variation that at least a few modern examples can always be found for just about any "this falls out of normal range" statement.

Also average sizes for nearly all cro-magnon populations were greater than they are today.

I've heard it said by anthropologists that there probably at least a few modern humans who possess more "Neanderthal" traits than an actual neanderthal.

Still, the problem with saying that every long skull was cranially deformed is that it leaves open the question of "why would so many different groups of people decide to do that?" Emulating an aristocracy is the most common reason ANYONE makes ANY fashion decision.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I guess another cause for cranial deformation traditions could be if hunter/gatherers were making carrying devices for their babies, and realized the baby's fragile neck is a liability, and consequently decided to fix the infant's head in place as part of the device.

That would lead to a lot of deformed heads, which could then become stylish. And a more deliberate method devised for making every child end up that way.

I'm just saying most fashion choices come from a desire to emulate some kind of successful person. Perhaps a folk hero. Or perhaps a nobility. But someone.



posted on Apr, 24 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous I've been doing some reading on the "elongated skull" finds, some of which are clearly deliberate deformations, and some of which appear to have been natural (due to the actual brain capacity being larger.)

The cranial capacities are, in fact, well within the range of known human cranial capacities.
The claim that they are larger originates with Brien Foerster, and he's simply not being truthful.

You can check this yourself using Foerster's own average capacity number.

Harte


This was the best site I found, which deals with elongated skulls in Europe.

www.soul-guidance.com...

And yes, there is a problem saying anything is "25%" bigger than average, because "average" is not well established. And also because modern humans exhibit wide enough variation that at least a few modern examples can always be found for just about any "this falls out of normal range" statement.

Foerster currently says 25% larger cranial capacity that conventional human skulls.
His original claim was that they had 25% greater capacity than human skulls.

Foerster himself states that they average 1600 ccs. You wouldn't have to go far to find humans in that range. In fact, if you were in Paracas, you wouldn't have to go anywhere at all, since undeformed skulls measured there have that same 1600 cc capacity on average.

I think that pretty much says it all right there.


originally posted by: bloodymarvelousAlso average sizes for nearly all cro-magnon populations were greater than they are today.
I believe you mean Neanderthal here.
Besides, YOU (and me) are Cro-Magnon.

Harte



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



Once you have enriched uranium at a high enough purity, all it takes to create an atomic blast is to hit it with a hammer.


One You have to extract the U 235 from the more common U 238 . U 235 makes up 0.71 % ( 1 part 140) - its takes a
massive Industrial complex ( Oak Ridge) to extract sufficient U 235 of sufficient purity to create a weapon

Critical mass of U 235 is about 25 kg (55 lbs)

Two to make a nuclear explosion you need to combine 2 subcritical masses, which together make a critical mass, at high
speed using explosive charge Too slow and will blew itself apart before reaction gets going

Three Nuclear weapons leave lasting traces, radioactive by products which can simply by their presence indicate formed by nuclear weapon detonation



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: fleabit
So we can find man-made tools over 1 million years old, but we can't find any remnants of what had to have been a civilization at least as advanced as ours, from 7000 years ago? No screws, lawnmowers, rubber or plastics, no weapons, bullets, rotors or engines or any of 10s of thousands of man-made objects that would be simple to find in droves (let alone structures and buildings and highways and such), if such a civilization every existed?

They must have had a heck of a recycling plan, that's all I know!


I grew up in a city that has been fought over since its founding in 1670. We spent our leave time from The Citadel with metal detectors on the battlefields outside of the city searching for relics. The buttons, bullets, belt buckles etc that we found from the Rev War were and are much more degraded than the things we found from The War For Southern Independence. I don't know if you realize that over thousands or millions of years all evidence would be degraded.


Obviously not all evidence is erased from history, archaeologists uncover relics constantly. You don't think it's strange that they would find literally -nothing- indicative of a nuclear age? If we disappeared tomorrow, you don't think in 7k years.. or even 50k years, they would find -any- sign of our existence? That's utterly ridiculous.

They find tools and weapons from literally a million years ago, from what had to be a MUCH smaller population size, with a LOT less infrastructure. Yet you think in 7000 years, they'd find NO trace of us.. at all?


You do realize when people talk about planned obsolesce, they aren't talking about a made up thing, right?. Everything, literally EVERYTHING, made today is designed to last for only a short period of time. Even plastics of today aren't made to last, most are designed with green materials now that allow them to breakdown over the course of a few years/decades instead of millennia like the plastics of old. Concrete, lasts approximately 50-100 years before it degrades and becomes unsafe. Metal, well that depends on which metal. Gold, Silver, and the like will of course survive the time scale, but will likely be repurposed for other needs. Steel and the metals like it would rust and over the course of several hundred years they would return to the earth and be indistinguishable from native soil elements. The only real variable is our combination metals, like Aluminum, or Stainless Steel which would last far longer than more natural materials, but then they would likely fall victim to the same process as Gold and Silver, they would be repurposed until they couldn't be any longer.

Of course this is all assuming that they aren't in an anaerobic environment, like being buried in clay or ice, where the decomp would slow down to the point of almost stopping allowing the item to survive well past its expected expiry date. In the end, 5-10,000 years there will be very little, perhaps nothing, left of our civilization.

Whats funny though is that everyone automatically seems to assume that for another "advanced" race to have existed, that they must follow the path we did to get here. In reality that's just not the case. They may have very well followed a different path than us, perhaps their path lead them to create different tech than us. Maybe their tech was "green", meaning it used nature itself as a component... that would explain why so little survives. Perhaps they were only "advanced" compared to other primitive civilizations at the time. Perhaps they were aliens sent here to observe/enslave us. We don't know, but until we accept that there is a possibility (however small) that history is more complex and that ancient civilizations were more advanced than we give them credit for, we likely never will.

I'm not saying you have to believe they existed, only that you need to keep an open mind so you don't miss something you otherwise wouldn't.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I dont buy these ancient epoch tales of todays tech. We'd have unearthed endless bits of milled stainless steel, titanium, etc, by now. I would have myself even!


Actually that assessment would be wrong. Metals that would be in the open would decay easily by the ravages of nature, meanwhile stone would last far longer for tens of thousands of years. In fact, stone would be the only surviving proof of such civilizations after thousands, or tens of thousands of years, because metals would have rusted, decayed and the winds would have carried away most of the rusted metal dust.


Really? Are you certain? Why do you think they call it the Iron Age and the Bronze Age? Because humans learned to work with iron and bronze. And how do we know that? Artifacts that have survived thousands of years in the ground.

One example


Stop and look at where most of those items were found. Either in Sand, which is so dry things become dessicated instead of decayed. Clay, while wet doesn't provide enough oxygen for bacteria so decay is slowed to an extreme. Ice, provides the moisture like clay, but also doesn't allow bacteria to get enough oxygen to reproduce and thus slow decay. The list goes on. Where the item is discovered goes a long way to explaining why it still exists now.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I dont buy these ancient epoch tales of todays tech. We'd have unearthed endless bits of milled stainless steel, titanium, etc, by now. I would have myself even!


After 500 years, all metals would have rusted away, and wood, paper, leather would have decomposed. The only things left standing would be stone carvings and clay tablets. Tectonic plates move at 5mm/year. After 20 years, that's a meter, 20,000 years, a kilometer, 200,000 years, ten kilometers. What was once a mountain thousands of meters in the air, could become a sea thousands of meters deep.

When we explore the sea bed of the North Sea, spear tips, and bones from woolly mammoths and large cats are found.



Here is an example of wood structures older than 500 years. www.theguardian.com...

Here are some old metal stuff, older than 500 years. www.jpost.com...
Great now show me an open wooden structure from 5000 years ago... Don't worry, I'll wait. Or how about a 5000 year old hunk of metal that has been exposed to the elements for the entirety of its existence, like a statue or something similar. I would say I'd wait, but I'm thinking you wont have much luck.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

Planned obsolesce does not make plastic a component in nearly everything of our modern age degrade faster.

The plastic in our land fills will be around long after we are gone for future scientist to study.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join