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.

 

Seperating Atlantis from reality

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
My take on all of this is that we have all been here before, if not even further as far as technology goes. Then a cataclysmic event reset everything and somehow the legends (based on fact) were created referring to Atlantis. Underwater due to floods following ice ages. Climate change notwithstanding, I believe it’s a cycle the earth and its’ population relives over and over, regardless of millenia between each cataclysmic event. And I don’t think any cataclysmic event will ever destroy 100% of the population, unless the planet is actually destroyed. Thus, the right survivors (those aware of technology) carry stories of advanced technology into the “new” future.


My friend, truer words have never been spoken.




posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

No down clues you say... perhaps Atlantis will rise. That would put an end to any misunderstandings.
Hydration is my speciality, if I have one...



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: SLAYER69

Since most of humanity lives near the sea,

Not the case, not even today.
Many today do, but those population centers didn't come into being until maritime trade started.

Harte



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: SLAYER69

Someone came to North America during the Bronze Age to get copper out of Michigan. If it wasn't Atlantis, who?


Could you please provide some more info on that? I heard at one point that it could have been the Romans. Fascinating anyway.

No evidence of it. Just numbers made up out of thin air concerning the amount of copper mined in antiquity in Michigan.

Harte



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Harte

Hey Harte

Waves. Yes true

You know, it's because people misinterpret what you meant by civilization.
I knew what you meant, but no reason to fire up the chronically astonished.

Harte



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Kandinsky

See, I agree and don't debate known history. I like to delve into the period of unknown prehistory.

Pre-cradle civs are my favorite targets.

You should probably be using the term "culture" instead of "civilization."


That gets at the heart of the matter, I think. Technically the word "civilization" implies cities, but more broadly it usually implies and advanced stage of culture and technology, including writing. A "culture," on the other hand, can include the way of life of stone age hunter-gatherers with none of that. Anthropologically speaking, it's a much broader, more inclusive term. The biggest question I want answered is at what level this previous culture/civilization was at? What WAS their technology? How do you explain these worldwide megaliths when nothing much else survived? All we have are some OOPARTS that are difficult to place in context. People jump to all kinds of conclusions about them, but without the archeological context they aren't worth much.

What we really need is another ice age to suck back the water and uncover this stuff.

AFAIK, there ARE no unexplained megalithic constructions. Maybe some of the stuff on Malta that can't be dated, I haven't kept up with it because it's a dead end.

Everyone wants to believe the oceans have covered the evidence, but I know why they have to have it this way - because there IS no evidence on land.

So we go through this dance where people get to pretend that sea level rising covered up all the evidence while the ancient and unknown civilization just stood there for thousands of years until they drowned.

Harte



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Perhaps the populace of the ancient civilisations were long gone and the oceans merely swallowed the evidence...



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Your ideas make sense. They are reasonable and logical. But the trouble is that they don't fit the myth. Not the Noah's flood nor the Atlantis. First, the flood of the Bible was not about coastlines dealing with rising sea level. The entire Bible story is centered around the Middle East. The ark came to rest in Turkey upon a mountain range.

Atlantis was about one location sinking not all of the coastlines.

I have no doubt the scenario you describe did in fact occur in reality. The Atlantis legend is something different.

What I believe is that early transatlantic trade occurred at different points of history. America was discovered more than once. Then for some reason, the route was lost and people forgot about it. I think Atlantis was a memory of that. I'm not sure where they went exactly or what the catastrophe was, just that it was scary enough to make them quit going there.

There is plenty of evidence to support this but all of it is highly controversial. So it is still speculative. But I think steadily increasing and will someday be accepted.

As for Atlantis being some highly advanced culture; that doesn't fit my belief as the Americas were primitive and uncivilized.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: kingparrot

more likely



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Kandinsky

See, I agree and don't debate known history. I like to delve into the period of unknown prehistory.

Pre-cradle civs are my favorite targets.

You should probably be using the term "culture" instead of "civilization."


That gets at the heart of the matter, I think. Technically the word "civilization" implies cities, but more broadly it usually implies and advanced stage of culture and technology, including writing. A "culture," on the other hand, can include the way of life of stone age hunter-gatherers with none of that. Anthropologically speaking, it's a much broader, more inclusive term. The biggest question I want answered is at what level this previous culture/civilization was at? What WAS their technology? How do you explain these worldwide megaliths when nothing much else survived? All we have are some OOPARTS that are difficult to place in context. People jump to all kinds of conclusions about them, but without the archeological context they aren't worth much.

What we really need is another ice age to suck back the water and uncover this stuff.

AFAIK, there ARE no unexplained megalithic constructions. Maybe some of the stuff on Malta that can't be dated, I haven't kept up with it because it's a dead end.

Everyone wants to believe the oceans have covered the evidence, but I know why they have to have it this way - because there IS no evidence on land.

So we go through this dance where people get to pretend that sea level rising covered up all the evidence while the ancient and unknown civilization just stood there for thousands of years until they drowned.

Harte


I'm not sure what you are referring to. We know there was human activity very early and the coastline of the Mediterranean is full of underwater archeology. Even very old building that is explained often appears to be built upon older foundations that are not explained. So there is evidence of prehistory we are not yet aware of.

There is no evidence of it being a super civilization. Just that these people took stonework a little more seriously than we do today.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

thermoforming (heat) is a possibility IMO but it seems ridiculous for me to think they were thermo forming 800 ton blocks of stone with primitive technology



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I've seen a lot of ideas but to be honest, I don't know how these pre Inca walls were built. If I had to guess I would go with some sort of cement.

Whatever tech was had, they lost it by the time Europeans arrived. Their metallurgy was not that advanced either. Basically, they were naked headhunters and cannibals.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: SLAYER69

Someone came to North America during the Bronze Age to get copper out of Michigan. If it wasn't Atlantis, who?


Could you please provide some more info on that? I heard at one point that it could have been the Romans. Fascinating anyway.

No evidence of it. Just numbers made up out of thin air concerning the amount of copper mined in antiquity in Michigan.

Harte


All one has to do is trace the pathway from the copper areas of North America back to where ever you think they were coming from and when you get there you'll find ample amounts of copper already there - so why make that monstrous journey - not a sea journey either as you have to port that copper across land first......and of course magically they left no trace of such a huge operation - while similar mines and shipping that dealt with the tin trade to Cornwall is easily found.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54


Even very old building that is explained often appears to be built upon older foundations that are not explained.


This was debunked long ago - may I suggest you look up Phoenician architecture and you'll find they had a habit of using a different pattern of stone for foundation and upper structures.

My favourite question - where is all the Atlantean pottery? Stone tools? Trade goods? Lost ships - especially anchors? Metal weapons? Civilizations tend to be very messy.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I'm not even surprised you and harte are here to try and debunk anything that's not official



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Have you guys thought that it might be a mistake to think intellectualism and technology are progress that can be universally applied as the be all and end all?

Look at Edo Japan, the Bushido, the perfection in what they did everywhere. The architecture, the skills in just about everything they did.

And no technology as we westerners see it.

Another consideration is Arther C Clark's;

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." .

Apply that retrospectively.

Sheesh, intellect isn't everything you know.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

yes I've seen a lot of ideas as well. I found the warming of stone to form it to be interesting and a possibility but not with primitive technology. my position is that we have a form of science out of many forms of science yet to be discovered

we do not have it all figured out, in fact we don't have much figured out at all and to assume that anyone really knows the truth is a bit ridiculous as well the theories require a bit of speculation

I'm sure at some point technology was found, not understood and used to create other materials such as machining tools and others. also, a lot of history was intentionally covered up to hide our origins or past



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I totally agree. Like I said in the post above. We think science has all of the answers but what if there's another science out there that we haven't discovered or ignore?

what if a realm of creation has yet to be discovered that will forever alter humanities future/ abilities?



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I'm not saying you are wrong. The reason I suggested cement is because artificial stone and geopolymers are established technologies already invented so I know they are possible. In fact geopolymer is a good example of undiscovered technology since it was only developed in the 1980's. Geopolymer in South-American monuments: first scientific paper published



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

for sure, I look at the formation of some of the stone/ material in many of the ancient megaliths and it really does look like cement/ poured mixture of some sort

actually a lot of it would make a lot more sense if it in fact was



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join