Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Out Of Place Artifacts

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
What about the sphinx? I've yet to hear a debunk of it, and it's obviously not a hoax.

Water erosion dates it at 12000 BC, and it's in the shape of a lion and points to the age of Leo, also 12000 BC. That's a heck of a coincidence.


This site has a lot of good stuff about the anomalies you're discussing and the first book goes into the sphinx indepth: www.violations.org.uk...




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Does anyone have any insights or updates on Egyptian petroglyphs found in Australia? "


Google up another clue to the mystery of the Abyddos petroglyphs or hieroglyphs. Officially it's denied as to what it really is, but see for yourself, a military helicopter and front view of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and more.

It seems to be evidence, clearly as it's depicted, of either time warps or prophecy.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
James - I googled "Abyddos Petroglyphs" and it returned nothing. However "Abydos Petroglyphs" returned lots of stuff about Egyptian rock drawings. Nothing about time warps or anything to do with the subject of this thread which is "out of place artifacts".

If you have some specific evidence available to support your wild claims then post it. But don't expect me, or anyone else, to go looking for you.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke


"If you have some specific evidence available to support your wild claims then post it. But don't expect me, or anyone else, to go looking for you.


Well EXCUSE me for answering the lady who posted with Abydos without spending time searching myself, as I just did. I found on page 1 a quick link to a petroglyph of a helicopter. Though it doesn't include the carrier or all the best. If interested enough, you can find the rest, pointed in the right direction.
www.qtm.net/~geibdan/belgium/egypt.html



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Mr. Dierbeck, I certainly understand your feelings about these OOPARTS; as an amateur archaeologist who has done a lot of poking around in Mesoamerican sites, I'd certainly be thrilled to find out that older cultures were even more advanced than we now realize they are.

But there's a line I think we have to draw between discoveries backed by sound research and assertions backed by wishful thinking. For example, many people point to huge submerged "temple columns" in support of their belief that an ancient civilization was submerged by some drastic mechanism. The fact of the matter is that those "columns" are simply extruded basalt which crystallizes into shapes that are hexagonal in cross section, as anyone who's taken a couple of basic geology class knows.

Now I know that you yourself haven't made such assertions, but I'm just giving an example here of how we really need to look at any and all assertions to determine not just the credentials of the people making them, but whether or not they pass what I call the "B.S. test".



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street


"For example, many people point to huge submerged "temple columns" in support of their belief that an ancient civilization was submerged by some drastic mechanism. The fact of the matter is that those "columns" are simply extruded basalt which crystallizes into shapes that are hexagonal in cross section, as anyone who's taken a couple of basic geology class knows"


I never mentioned any submerged temple columns, but underwater pyramids, which had to have been built above water before submerged. "underwater pyramid" search term gets them all that I've heard of confirmed, & the one explored in the Bahamas only 500-600 feet down documented in "Pyramid Prophecies" By Max Toth. You may be thinking of the underwater Bimini wall road , I don't know, or Thera of the Greek underwater ruins, or the new deep alleged city near Cuba.- www.earthfiles.com [ /b]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Mr Dierbeck, I realize you hadn't said anything about underwater columns; I was merely using tht as an example of some people confusing natural objects caused by geological processes with actual artifacts.

My bride and I were in central America last year, and this november we will be going back to the Yucatan Peninsula. Although not an expert by any means, I am somewhat familiar with the geology and archaeology of that area, and I simply don't see any evidence that there were any now-submerged cities in the caribbean. Certainly there have been assertions and fuzzy radar returns, but I haven't seen any evidence at all.

My belief is that if there were any evidence of sunken cities, he news would be in every scientific journal on the planet.

Of course, there's always some interesting anomalies. Note the picture of my wife examining something at about 40 feet off the coast of Belize last November LOL:




posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I forgot to clarify, the underwater city near Cuba was explored with lights & cams, though VERY deep down, and may be disputable for lack of lighting. But here's the link to that and more at www.earthfiles.com...

Saying there was no cataclysm doesn't explain how the great knowledge was lost, and how things got deep underground & deep underwater. The Japan pyramids underwater have lots of links at google.

The quartz ball was perfectly smooth beyond supposed ancient capability, retrieved from the Bahamas pyramid. Saying it may not have been a pyramid doesn't work in that case. (Dr Ray Brown, discoverer/explorer).



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Water erosion dates it at 12000 BC, and it's in the shape of a lion and points to the age of Leo, also 12000 BC. That's a heck of a coincidence.

If I understand correctly, in the deep past that area was in one way or another aligned with the constellation leo. Thats not much of a coincidence at all. The water erosion evidence is what all this is based on, and it doesn't amount to much. Schoch feels that its clearly water erosion, others have pointed out that the same pattern occurs in local rock formations due to differential weathering of the more and less resistant layers.

james j dierbeck
a military helicopter and front view of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and more

The abydos palmipset does not depict helicopters, aircraft carriers, or star wars ships.

We actually have a bunch of threads that discuss this topic:
ancient airships
Abydos
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Catch Penny Article on it

breifly tho, a palimpset is what happens when you have a set of glyphs, then later someone plasters over them and adds a different set of glyphs. Here the plaster fell apart in parts and the two sets overlap:

And interestingly here is the full set, the context:

both Photo copyright Andrew Bayuk

me for answering the lady who posted with Abydos

ACtually, if you'll notice, the other poster was talking about egyptian glyphs in australia. Abydos is in egypt.

"underwater pyramid" search term gets them all that I've heard of confirmed, & the one explored in the Bahamas

Ok, since you are unable to find any information about this on the web, I will present information.

Is this the sort of thing you are talking about or no? Because we can't have a sensible discussion if you are merely saying 'there's underwater pyramids in a book a read', since none of us has that book. So is that page a fair formulation of what you are talking about or no? In choosing it I simply picked out one of the top google results and in particular I picked it because its from 'crystal links', which is a place that normally advocates for these things. However this article seems to be surprisingly critical.

Pyramid Prophecies by Max Toth


www.earthfiles.com

There is no mention of 'cuba' on that page, and using their search for 'cuba, ruins' yeilds nothing also.


also, when bolding you need to have it so that there is no space in the closing bracket, you left a space in between the [ and the /. And also, when you want just the other guys stuff to be quoted, you need to make sure that there is only one 'quote' starting code, and that his text has the quote starting code in the front, and then only his text has the quote closing code at the end, and then add your reply.


how things got deep underground & deep underwater.

Things get underwater because water levels change. What was a beach 4,000 years ago is deep underwater today. The city of Ostia, for example, was once a coastal port, today its far inland because of changing water levels and deposition of sediment from the river Tiber. New Orleans is another example of how a city can get submerged, without there being a global cataclysm.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
What about the sphinx? I've yet to hear a debunk of it, and it's obviously not a hoax.

Water erosion dates it at 12000 BC, and it's in the shape of a lion and points to the age of Leo, also 12000 BC. That's a heck of a coincidence.


Erosion by no means dates the Sphinx back that far. The only scientist that makes any claim even the least bit similar to what you are saying is Dr. Robert Schoch Use the "search" function on him and the sphinx to see how many times I've posted the link to the actual date attributed by Schoch to the sphinx (it's far younger than your ridiculous claim.)

I am tired of going over and over and over this.


OK, ok, one last time:
www.antiquityofman.com...

Harte



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I went to your link to confirm what I thought I had read regarding the Sphinx. Schoch says it dates from at least 7000 to 5000 BC, which is a minimum age, and he adds that it could be even older. Therefore the proposal that it could have been built before 9 500 BC is not out of line with his findings. I say 9 500 BC because that is the approximate date from C14 dating that Allen and Delair give for a global disaster in their book 'Cataclism: The day the earth almost died.'.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

shoch
Thus, on the basis of the climatic history outlined above, one might tentatively suggest that the Great Sphinx was sculpted in very early dynastic times, or in the Predynastic Period (late-Fourth Millennium or earliest-Third Millennium B.C.). However, one must account for the considerable weathering that appears on the walls of the Sphinx hollow, on the body of the sculpture itself, and on the walls of its associated temples-weathering that was possibly covered up or repaired during the Old Kingdom (ca. 2600-2400 B.C.). One must also take seismic data into account (see below)-in particular, the fact that it indicates the subsurface dissolution of the limestone beneath the floor of the Sphinx enclosure is very deep and non-uniform. These latter considerations suggest the possibility that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may have taken place several millennia earlier than its standard attribution[..]

Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago.

So perhaps younger than 7,000 BC. Thats a stretch from it definitly being from 12000 BC, as claimed upthread. And to be clear, the erosion on the sphinx itself doesn't yeild this oldest age, its the erosion of the limestone that makes up the ground in the area that really extends the age.



[edit on 24-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
James Dierbeck says:

I forgot to clarify, the underwater city near Cuba was explored with lights & cams, though VERY deep down, and may be disputable for lack of lighting. But here's the link to that and more at www.earthfiles.com...


The search I did required me to pay money to read the report. Meanwhile, I have reviewed the following journals for the time period (2001-2003):
    Review of Archaeology vol 21 no 1 through vol 24 no 2 (Spring 2000 through Fall 2003)
    American Journal of Archaeology vols 105-108 inclusive
    Journal of Quaternary Science
    Oxford Journal of Archaeology
    Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology
    Quaternary International
    Quaternary Research
    Quaternary Perspectives (newsletters)
    Quaternary Science Reviews
    RadioCarbon
    The Holocene

None of them mention anything about a "sunken City" off Cuba.


Saying there was no cataclysm doesn't explain how the great knowledge was lost...


What great knowledge are you talking about?


... and how things got deep underground & deep underwater. The Japan pyramids underwater have lots of links at google.


The "Japan pyramids" (Yonaguni-jima formations) look like terraced basalt to me; and I find it interesting that none of the serious journals mentioned above have considered them to be artifacts. As a matter of fact, if you google something like yoniguni geomorphology, you will come to Dr. Robert M. Shoch's website, where he talks of his actual expeditions to the site, profusely illustrated with underwater photographs. Now Schoch, whose PhD is in geology, is not a uniformitarian, he is somewhat of a catastrophist; if you follow this, I'm sure you realize that catastrophism is enjoying a comeback (just look at Pitman and Ryan's superb Noah's Flood : The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed History).

Yet Schoch believes that the Yoniguni formations are natural, and provides some pretty powerful arguments that the geomorphology is easily explained by the cracking which could be caused by repeated fault ruptures. My personal belief is that another possibility is that the rock could be exhibiting crossbedding, which is extremely common in a lot of North American Jurassic formations (see some of my photographs here); but I'm very much an amateur geologist and archaeologist, so far be it from me to second-guess Schoch.


The quartz ball was perfectly smooth beyond supposed ancient capability, retrieved from the Bahamas pyramid. Saying it may not have been a pyramid doesn't work in that case. (Dr Ray Brown, discoverer/explorer).


I am not familiar with either the quartz ball, the Bahamas pyramid, or Dr Ray Brown, so I can't really comment on it. If you have some citations, I would be more than happy to check it out.

Now I do have pictures from our most recent dive trip to Belize, and some Mayan pyramids in Belize and Guatemala, but they're not underwater.

Mr. Dierbeck, I want to re-emphasize that I am not a professional, just an amateur. However, we at ATS are fortunate to have an extremely well read and scholarly investigator here in the person of Ms. Byrd. I suggest you research her through the "members" tab and look at her comments. I personally believe you can take anything this esteemed colleague says to the bank.

To summarize, I simply haven't seen any serious evidence that there are any large-scale sunken cities anywhere. The Harappan villages off India and the even older villages in the Black Sea that date back to the time when it was a much smaller freshwater lake are there for all to see; but they are small villages, and the cataclysmic inundations that resulted in their being submerged are well-documented.

But that's about it.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


ACtually, if you'll notice, the other poster was talking about egyptian glyphs in australia. Abydos is in egypt."


Yes, nitpicker, I answered her post about pertroglyphs with a point to other Egypt style petroglyphs, & I'm out of line?



this since none of us has that book."


So now book evidence is in admissable here? You're expert at excluding anything you want to reject. Crystal links is NOT a comprehensive source of info.


"However this article seems to be surprisingly critical.
Pyramid Prophecies by Max Toth "



I've noticed that ALL with KEY info about anything have a Cointelpro site set up to attack them unfairly.



There is no mention of 'cuba' on that page, and using their search for 'cuba, ruins' yeilds nothing also.


You didn't find it, but Linda Moulton Howe was on with art bell reporting the exploration. The Cuba site is disputed as to if it's actually ruins, so she may've discarded it. Guess what...it's unimportant to the conversation!




"Things get underwater because water levels change. What was a beach 4,000 years ago is deep underwater today."


By your logic, then, in 4000 years, ALL will be deep underwater?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
I answered her post about pertroglyphs with a point to other Egypt style petroglyphs, & I'm out of line?

I didn't say you were out of line, however it clearly made sense for another poster to say 'whats this got to do with it'.

So now book evidence is in admissable here

This is not a court, this is a discussion board. While its intersting that there is a book about the topic you are talking about, I don't have it, and no one else seems to have it, and, perhaps more importantly, you have not been able to tell us what sort of evidence the book presents for its claims, outside of a story told by the author. If the author found the pyramid, did he take picture? Has anyone scanned that a region of the ocean floor? It can't be very deep if he was scuba diving to it. What artificats demonstrate that it is what he says, and how does he demonstrate that the artifact is actually from the pyramid?? These are pretty simple things that you should be able to inform us about.

Crystal links is NOT a comprehensive source of info.

I agree, infact, i rather dislike crystal links, I think they're entirely too credulous and sensationalistic and unscholarly
[quopte]I've noticed that ALL with KEY info about anything have a Cointelpro site set up to attack them unfairly.
The site in reference is the page from amazon from which one can purchase the book. It has no disparaging information and only a single review that praises toth.

You didn't find it, but Linda Moulton Howe was on with art bell reporting the exploration

What page on that site has the cuban info? Is it there or is it not???

Guess what...it's unimportant to the conversation!

In case you've forgotten, you were the one who brought it up.

By your logic, then, in 4000 years, ALL will be deep underwater?

This statement plainly demonstrates that you don't know what 'logic' means. Usually when a person knows what a word means and how it is used, they are able to use the word correctly themselves.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

"What great knowledge are you talking about?


How about the use of PI in the construction, or shafts astronomcally aligned? Or how about the 2 of 3 Baalbek monoliths that aren't attached to bedrock? How did savages move them? THAT knowledge!



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
James, I do not know what you mean by "PI" nor do I know what "construction" you're discussing.

But these people were no "savages" by any means; if you lived in an agricultural society without much artificial light, you'd have had plenty of time to observe the skies, both at night and by day. You'd be able to determine celestial cycles and epicycles; when you think about it, that knowledge is critical when it comes to determining when to plant and harvest your crops.

Certainly there's an excellent correlation between the locations of the three large pyramids at Gizeh and the stars al-nirak, al-niram, and mintaka; the stones at Stonehenge were aligned to mark the solstices and equinoctes, and the alignment of stone buildings at Tikal in Guatemala and Nan Madal in Ponape are precise indeed. This is especially surprising at the Nan Madal ruins, since Ponape is only at about 7 deg N lat and things like solstices and equinoctes are pretty difficult to determine that close to the equator!

But my point is not that the ancients were incapable of serious surveying and civil engineering; they were indeed. My point is that such knowledge is neither "great" nor "lost".

Edited to read: I just figured out you were talking about pi the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. Sorry, my bad!

But what's so surprising about that? Pound a stake in the ground, attach a cord, and you will get a circle which is probably accurate to a half-percent (assuming the cord doesn't slip or stretch). Again, the ancients were no slouches as engineers; as a matter of fact, probably the two greatest engineering program managers in history were General Leslie Groves who ran the Manhattan Project, and Imhotep, who ran the Great Pyramid Project.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

"But these people were no "savages" by any means;"



My history knowledge says savages, but IF the builders were indeed men, I say savages, like those that threw Christians to lions for entertainment, or the human sacrificer cults of history, & neverending wars.



"My point is that such knowledge is neither "great" nor "lost".
by Off_The_Street]


Explain then how the people placed 2 of the 3 Baalbek blocks at the Terrace at Baalbek? (Pictured in the book "Chariots of the Gods") Hezboallah makes access difficult for pix now, & pix need be digital to put on the net. The biggest pyramid stones are puny compared to estimated (von Daniken) up to 2000 tons blocks 15 ft by 15 ft by 60 ft. perfectly placed at the terrace. The picture I provided was the 3rd block, cut, but not removed, different color; 14 ft by 14 ft by 68 ft.

To this day with all the machines and slaves we can surround it with, we can't move them an inch! That knowledge is NOT LOST? NOT GREAT?



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

My history knowledge says savages, but IF the builders were indeed men, I say savages, like those that threw Christians to lions for entertainment, or the human sacrificer cults of history, & neverending wars.


If you equate “savages” with evil, then humanity -- from the pagans who threw the Christians to the lions to the Christians who burned each other at the stake to the 20th century murderers of every religious persuasion -- are all savages. But that’s ingenuous; I am using “savages” to refer to a lack of technological capability. The “savages” who gassed six million Jews and gypsies also developed the world’s first operational jet fighter and ballistic missile. I propose we discuss engineering and technology aspects and leave the politico-religious aspects out of it; we’re dealing with technical capabilities here, not Man’s inhumanity to Man.



"My point is that such knowledge is neither "great" nor "lost".
by Off_The_Street]

Explain then how the people placed 2 of the 3 Baalbek blocks at the Terrace at Baalbek? (Pictured in the book "Chariots of the Gods") Hezboallah makes access difficult for pix now, & pix need be digital to put on the net. The biggest pyramid stones are puny compared to estimated (von Daniken) up to 2000 tons blocks 15 ft by 15 ft by 60 ft. perfectly placed at the terrace. The picture I provided was the 3rd block, cut, but not removed, different color; 14 ft by 14 ft by 68 ft.


Well, my Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers Seventh Edition quotes a specific gravity of 2.67 for granite, which means a cut slab would weigh about 190 lb/ft^2. A granite block 15 ft X 15 ft X 60 feet, then, would weigh about 1280 tons, rather than the 2000 quoted by von Däniken. Now I haven’t been able to determine what kind of stone comprised the trilithon (if you have, please set me straight), but I do know that the geology of the Bekaa Valley shows it at one time to have been a shallow sea, which leads me to believe that the rock quarried there would likely be limestone, which would mean that the “2000-ton” block quoted by von Däniken would actually be only 1213 tons. In other words, he’s off in his most basic calculation by almost a hundred percent! (The third block, by the way, using your own figures, would weigh either 1266 or 1199 tons depending on the makeup of the rock.)

Jim, you seem to be pretty involved in this field; why is it that you haven’t done the basic research to find the obvious flaws in von Däniken’s calculations?

Now I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but your information seems to be questionable. I think I’ve pretty much answered most of your questions and shown that your sources simply are either incorrect or inaccurate, and the vast majority of these “anomalies”, lost knowledge, and out-of place artifacts -- aren’t.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

"capabilities here, not Man’s inhumanity to Man."


I used the word disbelieving even that man did this with some advanced tech. www.ufoevidence.org...
The book Chariots of the God has a picture of a 20,000 TON (von Daniken estimate may be off, but still beyond present capabilities to move) upside down piece of mountaintop in Sacsahuaman Peru, which makes the Baalbek blocks look puny. The Conquistadors believed Sacsahuaman was the work of the devil, at 12000 feet altitude with immense stones cut as if butter, perfectly fit together.



"A granite block 15 ft X 15 ft X 60 feet, then, would weigh about 1280 tons, rather than the 2000 quoted by von Däniken. (The third block, by the way, using your own figures, would weigh either 1266 or 1199 tons depending on the makeup of the rock.)"


The site ancientmysteries estimates that block at about your figures, right. I didn't give von Daniken his estimates that matter little, because even at 1200 tons, it's more than our cranes can handle, much less slaves with ropes.
Limestone erodes with rain, which rules out limestone at Baalbek.


The Peru slab is the key evidence that man did not do this, or the knowledge is utterly lost still, or both.
www.chariotsofthegods.com...





new topics




 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join