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.

 

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris the watcher
my question is,

Why so many of us take to reading these "out there" books/theories?


An excellent question.

The answer is that they play to human psychology. They teach us that we are "special" (many people find it repulsive to think that we evolved from the same ancestors as the apes) and this gives them something "comfortable" to think about.

They empower people -- the "you are special!" concept. They promote a "the little guy can find out the REAL truth!" idea and empower Joe Average with "all those scientists and historians are STUPID! What do THEY know!" It rewards sloppy research and lets you think that all you have to do is look at something and you can know more about the object and the culture than the people who spent years learning how to read the language and studying thousands of these objects.


and what are we suposed to do? cos most of us (especially on here) are hear to discuss these "out there" idea's, moderators/members are moaning about the retelling of already known or debunked idea's (which i think is absoulutley idiotic- surely they is a continuing legion of new members each month with NO prior knowlegde of this site or great deal of understanding in the "out there" field" !

It's hard to remain patient sometimes when people come to a conspiracy site and ask a question that's been asked in a hundred other threads. These are questions where they could see both sides of an issue simply by reading the boards. I do try to be patient.



The orthodox historians answers do not alway's satisfy us! And niether do the un- orthodox as evidence is can never be truely given (back using faith again!)

This may also have a link to rejection of schools: "teacher made this so VERY dull that only stupid people would be interested in it. These guys make it fun and cool and exciting. Who needs stupid historians?"




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The problem is that the gravity on Mars is too weak to hold an atmosphere, it's too cold (solid core, not a molten one), the air is too thin, and it's cold enough to freeze the carbon dioxide out of the air (make dry ice... something that doesn't happen here on Earth because it's too warm.)


I agree, that is how Mars is now.. but I do not believe Mars was like this always.

Have you heard of the habital zone? I think that is what it is called. Earth is presently inside this zone in space making Earth warm enough for life to survive. This site explains how the Earth is presently moving away from the Sun and a long time from now Earth will no longer be in the habital zone, but Venus will be. Once Mars was in the habital zone and most likely flourished with life.

I am not talking about 20,000 years ago, more like hundreds of thousands of years ago.


Originally posted by Harte
I suppose it's possible that Mars was once very different, prior to the impact you speak of.

But what is certainly not possible is that such an impact occured only 20,000 years ago.


I totally agree with Harte on this.


Originally posted by Chris the watcher
im not saying that the atlanteans wernt in contact with ets! i mean who knows! theres no real mention of ets in the legends!


There are lot's of legends speaking of Angels that came from the heavens, even in the Bible.


Originally posted by Darkmind
Everything in our physiology points to our having evolved from small scuttling hairy thing to Homo Sapiens.


Or we came from different species breeding with each other and new breeds came from that. Yes I am talking about interbreeding between two different species. But let's not get into that here, that is for other threads that are already in full swing



Originally posted by Byrd
Before buying TOO heavily into Mr. Hancocks ideas (some of which he now rejects, by the way)


I have been searching for this on the Internet and I cannot find any information regarding Mr. Hancock saying that it was fiction or that he rejects his writings. Can you please provide a valid link to this source?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
I have been searching for this on the Internet and I cannot find any information regarding Mr. Hancock saying that it was fiction or that he rejects his writings. Can you please provide a valid link to this source?

Stari,

In general, Hancock is magnanimous enough to reject his own former claims in cases where said claims have been, or are about to be, exposed as either fraud on Hancock's part or, at best, extremely sloppy (or even nonexistent)research on Hancock's part.

A good example is the way Hancock piggybacked onto vonDaniken's interpretation of the sarcophagus lid in Pacal's tomb. VonDaniken had, as you probably remember, characterized the relief carving as an astronaut, even going so far as to juxtapose a picture of the carving next to a photo of an American astronaut in a space capsule simulator, orienting both pictures in a way that would heighten the similarities.

As much as I resent Mr. vonDaniken's misrepresentations that originally fooled me in my misspent youth, in this one case I can forgive him. See, the Mayan glyphs associated with Pacal's tomb had not been deciphered at the time of the publication of vonDaniken's "Chariots of the Gods?"

The Mayan glyphs were deciphered in the late seventies/early eighties by the late Linda Schele et al.

However, Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" was published in 1995. Unfortunately for Hancock's dignity, he went ahead and joined vonDaniken at the hip by characterizing what had then been known for a decade or more - that the carving was a depiction of Pacal descending the Tree of Life - as a "man operating complex machinery."

It is important to note that Hancock did not acknowledge this egregious error for years after the publication of his book. He eventually did so upon being backed into a corner. But at least he did so.

Assuming you are in possession of a copy of "Fingerprints..." by Hancock, you should be able to verify this yourself. I do not have a link to Hancock admitting this one error. He's (finally) admitted other errors as well. (No links there, either. It appears that Hancock is not eager to publicize such admissions - I don't blame him.) Almost every instance of such admissions came when somebody that knew what they were talking about forced Hancock to look at what he had said. IOW, Hancock simply does not do the kind of research that his writing "style" insinuates that he does. Not, that is, until he is forced to by individuals that are willing to, or about to, expose Hancock as a sloppy researcher. And not until his book has already misinformed hundreds of thousands, if not millions (in the case of F.O.G.) of readers.

Anyway, it is these sorts of errors of fact that Hancock most easily acknowledges. I note, however, that he never goes into how the refutation of these errors might effect the foundations of any theories that are built on the errors that he has acknowledged.

Harte



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Actually, I think of all the planets "Atlanteans" might have come from, I think Venus might be a better bet than Mars. Prior to the entire surface of the planet sinking into the mantle about 500,000 years ago, it might have been very Earthlike. One all the oceans vaporized, though, forget it. There's quite a difference in the timeline, but a lot of these old tales aren't very accurate when it comes to time in the first place.

Imagine a relatively advanced race of Venusians, humanoids who evolved on a planet quite a bit like ours, who were smart enough to figure out that their own planet's surface is about to sink due to a variety of forces. Maybe an asteroid collision, or solar flare, who knows? They salvage what they can, hop on a rocket and zoom to Earth, which is luckily relatively hospitable to them.

Over the years, the tale of their journey morphs into all kinds of odd stories about worldwide floods, mysterious islands, etc.

Venus. That's the ticket.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I do not have a link to Hancock admitting this one error.


I'm sorry Harte but I would like to read this myself or hear it from him directly before I believe heresay. I guess that is just the lil scientist in me. Nothing personal, I'm not saying that you are a liar, I just was hoping you could provide me with a link or two of an interview of Hancock saying this.

Can you tell me when he said this and where he was when he said this, possibly even who was interviewing him when he said this? Can you offer me anything to use in my research on this?


Originally posted by Enkidu
Actually, I think of all the planets "Atlanteans" might have come from, I think Venus might be a better bet than Mars.


I don't agree with you on this. If we believe that Atlanteans civilization lived here on Earth like Plato said then we would need to also believe him when he states it was 9000 years before his time. That would make it 11,500 years roughly from now that Atlanteans civilization ended. So if they were as advanced as Plato says then I am assuming that they lived here on Earth for many thousands of years prior to the end of their civilization. Which of course it is just a guess.

Anyhow if we believe in the theory of the big bang and that all of the planets are slowly moving apart and the universe is expanding then that would place Venus even closer to the Sun than what it is now. It would not have been habitable.

Mars on the other hand would have been closer to the Sun at that time frame.. not by much I know.. but a little closer. It makes a more logical choice. Not to mention the resemblance of pyramids at Cydonia to the pyramids all around our planet.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Byrd
The problem is that the gravity on Mars is too weak to hold an atmosphere, it's too cold (solid core, not a molten one), the air is too thin, and it's cold enough to freeze the carbon dioxide out of the air (make dry ice... something that doesn't happen here on Earth because it's too warm.)


I agree, that is how Mars is now.. but I do not believe Mars was like this always.


Well, gravity is a function of mass and composition. The only way this would have changed for Mars is if its core was molten (we know this did happen)... and if it was a lot larger.

Now, we do know that the core was molten for awhile and so the planet was a bit warmer. But the atmosphere would still be too thin to provide much oxygen.


Have you heard of the habital zone? I think that is what it is called. Earth is presently inside this zone in space making Earth warm enough for life to survive. This site explains how the Earth is presently moving away from the Sun and a long time from now Earth will no longer be in the habital zone, but Venus will be. Once Mars was in the habital zone and most likely flourished with life.

No, there hasn't been enough time for that. This is actually a calculus problem, but we can do some rough (bad) estmates using simple math. The Earth's been here for 4 billion years and if it really did move an inch a year away from the sun, the total shift in position would only be 63,000 miles.

A shift inwards of 63,000 miles for that 4 billion year period wouldn't bring Mars into the reach of any habitable zone.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte
I do not have a link to Hancock admitting this one error.


I'm sorry Harte but I would like to read this myself or hear it from him directly before I believe heresay. I guess that is just the lil scientist in me. Nothing personal, I'm not saying that you are a liar, I just was hoping you could provide me with a link or two of an interview of Hancock saying this.

Can you tell me when he said this and where he was when he said this, possibly even who was interviewing him when he said this? Can you offer me anything to use in my research on this?

Stari,

I understand completely. After all, what you ask is no more or less than what I am usually asking for!


I came across this one particular piece of information somewhere, but I know it was not in any Hancock interview.

I'm sure it's in somebody's writings about Hancock, and I'm equally sure that I have somewhere in my saved links the link that will take you to this other person that will tell you this. If (when) I come across it again (I have about a thousand links saved!), I will certainly post it, but it might not be what you're looking for. BTW, I believe something similar to this might be found at Hancock's website. Not a complete "I was wrong" sort of statement, but a statement where he tells us that he's admitted mistakes in the past (without going into what the mistakes were.
)

I have on other occasions read other people's critiques of Hancock where they mention similar mea culpas Hancock has made, regarding other subjects. To my mind, this is to his credit. Another example, if I recall correctly, is that Hancock originally thought that the three main pyramids at Giza pre-dated the Egyptians. As I understand it, it is today his position that these three pyramids do not pre-date the Egyptians, but that possibly the plans for the layout of the three pyramids do.

In the meantime, however, would you say that Hancock's (and vonDaniken's) interpretation of the lid on Pacal's sarcophagus was erroneous? If you agree that this is true, then the question only becomes "Did Hancock admit this error?" Right?

If that's the case, then Hancock comes out looking much better if he did admit it, no?

Harte

PS.
Stari,
You knew I couldn't leave it at that, didn't you?
Here's a couple of things:


Hancock then visited Palenque where he viewed Pacal's tomb. Compare Hancock's reaction to Erich von Däniken's thirty years before. Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods: "The structure Pacal reclined in resembled a technological device." Von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods: "Today any child would identify his vehicle as a rocket."

Hancock makes his claim for ancient technology on the basis that the temple's inscriptions "had not yet been fully decoded." However, decades ago Linda Schele et al. deciphered the Mayan language, and the tomb of Pacal contained a description of what it was - a scene of the king traveling to the netherworld. This evidence was ignored.

Hancock claimed in 1995 that there was corroborating evidence for an ancient civilization in Mexico on the basis of Cuernavaca where a step pyramid lay beneath a volcanic lava mantle. Geologists dated the lava to 8,500 years ago. Unfortunately for Hancock, this sensational claim was a mistake and a fraud. The geology was proven wrong, and Hancock had to retract the claim. He never did any actual research into the myth of the ancient temple, reiterating a mistake made by Prof. Charles Hapgood, the same man who advocated the Piri Reis map.
(My emphasis.)
Source: jcolavito.tripod.com...



The result was that my case for a lost civilisation was anything but bullet-proof ,and Fingerprints has come in for a massive amount of criticism -- some of it richly deserved. Often, for example, I ignored the official carbon dates for sites I was writing about -- just brushed them aside on the grounds that C-14 can't date stone monuments directly -- and got on with finding my own way through all the good (and bad) reasons to doubt the orthodox chronology.

This was a mistake. With the benefit of hindsight I now recognise that I should have taken much fuller account of the C-14 evidence for megalithic sites like Tiahuanaco, and presented it to my readers in sufficient depth and detail before making the case for an alternative chronology. I should have understood that in the long run no attempt to propose much greater antiquity for any archaeological site is likely to thrive unless it can deal with the carbon dates on which the orthodox chronology usually rests.
(My emphasis.)
Source: www.grahamhancock.com...
Note that the above comes directly from Hancock, and it's posted on his website.

I found these fairly quickly with the following Google search:
www.google.com...
If you vary the terms I used in that search (it was only "Graham Hancock mistake" - leaving me wondering just how hard you were searching for this in the first place,) you might find a lot more.

As an aside, here's a link to part of a site that links to several errors Hancock made in F.O.G., some of which Hancock may or may not have been forced to admit to by now:
www.intersurf.com...

Hope this helps.

Harte



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
graham hancock lies
graham hancock misleads readers

Here is a couple of search strings that I used when looking for an interview with Mr. Hancock saying he lied in his books, or mislead people. I did find personal websites with personal ideas, but nothing of Hancock saying he lied in his books.

The only thing that I am reading here that Hancock didn't bother mentioning in his book was Carbon dating. Well, why would he mention it? Wasn't Tiahuanaco carbon dated from a reed basket? One of which could have been left by anyone anywhere down the timeline of history? It was either Tiahuanaco or Machu Picchu that was dated with a reed basket. At any rate you cannot date rocks using carbon dating so there is no accurate testing for rocks. They have to use what ever people have left behind from any time period.



A different approach, not a different position
Fingerprints of the Gods was intended to shake things up.

It did.

And I stand by it.


That is the very first lines that he writes on that page you quoted from Harte. Sounds like he is standing by his work. I can't blame him if carbon dating is the only thing that people had a problem with. Can you? If so why? Carbon dating is only correct up too ca 60,000 years. You cannot date the rocks, and the people who visited that area through out the years are not what is in question here. Only the structures dates of being contructed.

Link so you can read up on carbon dating.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
graham hancock lies
graham hancock misleads readers

Here is a couple of search strings that I used when looking for an interview with Mr. Hancock saying he lied in his books, or mislead people. I did find personal websites with personal ideas, but nothing of Hancock saying he lied in his books.


Well, there's your problem then. I don't think anybody here has claimed that Hancock admitted to lying. Your response was to Byrd saying:

Before buying TOO heavily into Mr. Hancocks ideas (some of which he now rejects, by the way),,,


I think Byrd made this statement in context with the Mars thing, but I've just given you two examples above (three, really, if you count Pacal's sarcophagus) of former Hancock ideas which he now rejects that don't involve Mars.

BTW, it is my opinion that Hancock did mislead his readers involving the Pacal's sarcophagus lid interpretation. Of course, the polite way that many comment on this idocy is that Hancock is a "sloppy researcher." But, if you ask me, there are two possibilities in that one instance. The first is that Hancock knew the glyphs had been translated and in fact knew the correct interpretation for the carving of Pacal. In that case, he is not only "misleading," he is also lying. The second possibility is that Hancock didn't even know that the Mayan glyphs had been translated over fifteen years before he published Fingerprints of the Gods! In that case, Hancock would still be misleading (and in my interpretation - still lying to) his readers by implying throughout the book that he had thoroughly researched the subject.

Either way, he is lying in F.O.G.


Originally posted by StariThe only thing that I am reading here that Hancock didn't bother mentioning in his book was Carbon dating.


Yes, that's the only thing you're reading about on the man's own website. Hancock makes a living purposefully misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the archaeological findings that other people have spent decades, even lifetimes, discovering and studying. Do you expect him to announce this fact on his website?


Originally posted by StariWell, why would he mention it? Wasn't Tiahuanaco carbon dated from a reed basket? One of which could have been left by anyone anywhere down the timeline of history? It was either Tiahuanaco or Machu Picchu that was dated with a reed basket. At any rate you cannot date rocks using carbon dating so there is no accurate testing for rocks. They have to use what ever people have left behind from any time period.

That is the absolute height of absurdity, to think that an archaeological site would be dated from a single source. Even Hancock tells you right there on that page of the numbers of methods utilized in dating a site.

Tiahuanaco has not been completely excavated, of course. I mean, they're not going to destroy it in order to date it. However, organic material has been recovered from underneath several of the massive stones there. That, admittedly, does not place every single stone erected there in the same age. But every thing anyone has found there through trenching, borings, etc. points to a similar age for the site. If the site is much, much older, then we must assume that the original inhabitants left not even a few scraps of evidence of the construction of the site or their subsequent habitation of the site (which, presumably, would at the very least generate some refuse,) and only the later, scruffy natives that came to live there were sloppy enough to leave their "reed baskets" lying around for us to date.

Of course, certain assumptions must be made when conducting the science of Archaeology. Some of these assumptions are a stretch, sometimes, until further evidence can be found anyway. But there is one assumption that is absolutely rock-solid: humans leave trash behind.


Originally posted by Stari


A different approach, not a different position
Fingerprints of the Gods was intended to shake things up.

It did.

And I stand by it.


That is the very first lines that he writes on that page you quoted from Harte. Sounds like he is standing by his work. I can't blame him if carbon dating is the only thing that people had a problem with. Can you? If so why? Carbon dating is only correct up too ca 60,000 years. You cannot date the rocks, and the people who visited that area through out the years are not what is in question here. Only the structures dates of being contructed.

Link so you can read up on carbon dating.


Please. Are you assuming that I don't know anything about carbon dating?

Again, Hancock has admitted he was wrong. Why can't you admit he was wrong?

Also, if you think that carbon dating at Tiahaunaco is the only thing people "had a problem with," then you are obviously ignoring the information I've linked for you in this thread. Stari, don't ask me for these links if you are not going to use them.

Lastly, you most certainly can "date the rocks." Just not through carbon dating. Of course, dating stone accomplishes nothing in Archaeology. The stone is billions of years old in many cases. Beyond some geological factoid, what would we learn from dating stone?

Harte

[edit on 8/12/2006 by Harte]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Well, there's your problem then. I don't think anybody here has claimed that Hancock admitted to lying.


When someone deliberately misleads another person then that is a lie. At least where I come from it is.

And then let’s skip forward in your post:


Originally posted by Harte
In that case, he is not only "misleading," he is also lying.


Even you are saying he is lying. If someone deliberately misleads someone to believe in something that is not real
Then isn't that a lie? I know you will argue with me on this. But this is my opinion. My search strings are good, the info
About Mr. Hancock that is being presented here is not. Should he have mentioned the carbon dating for the sites in?
his book? Yes, I do admit he should not have left that information out. But do they have relevance to the nature of his
book? I guess that would depend on if you believe carbon dating is a valid method of dating sites. There are
volcanoes in South America and when they are active they release carbon into the atmosphere and then drop that
carbon on the Earth. When this happens it has to affect any carbon dating procedures done on artifacts.

Link to Pacals sarcophagus lid
www.mesoweb.com...

That source link is for anyone who does not know what Harte is talking about. It is not directed strictly toward you Harte, same as the carbon dating link. I am assuming that there are readers here that do not know what we are talking about and maybe they would like source links.

And thanks for the link to Linda Schele Bio, how did that link help your argument on Hancock misleading readers?
You want us to read your links (sources) but in this case you only gave a bio not her translations.


Originally posted by Harte
Do you expect him to announce this fact on his website?


He has a different method of looking at archeological sites than most archeologists have. Is that bad? He has an open mind when it comes to stuff like carbon dating and what is this picture showing us. That is not a bad thing, it is called science. If a scientist cannot have an open mind and understand that findings change constantly when dealing with archeology then they are in the wrong field. History has shown that what was known 50 years ago is not what is known today, why? Because people went out and dug and found new evidence to disprove what earlier scientists found and made a theory on. Am I saying what Mr. Hancock has to say about that archeology site is 100 percent correct? Heck no. It is his theory on what he saw during his trip there. He is not a liar for having a theory, if that were true then we all would be liars.

Well, I must leave now, I have less than an hour to get to work, yes I have a day job.. well night job. I have to close the store down tonight. I would like to finish commenting on everything else you said Harte, that will have to wait though for tomorrow or later tonight depending on how I feel when I get home.

Let me leave you with this though. Yes I did know that you would not leave it alone.. why? Because it is in your nature. Same as it is mine to not leave anything you say go. Is that a bad thing? Heck no.. Do I know all of the facts about every little thing dug up about our history? No way. Learning about our ancient history and the geology of our planet is just a hobby, one that I do take VERY seriously. And one I have had for many many years now.

You do not even believe in the possibility of an ancient intelligent civilization living long ago here on Earth, and because of that I can understand why you would never believe that they could have come from Mars. Does this make you a bad person? No way, you have your own theories and you are mainstream with them. I like to think out of the box from time to time. I let my eyes see what is out there and then I form my own analysis. Do I look at what scientist find? Yes, do I believe all of their theories on their findings? Sometimes... sometimes I have my own interpretation. Is that bad?

When you first started messaging in this thread you where sounding like my opinion didn't matter, only what mainstream scientists believe was the truth. Now I find it amusing. Did I know you wouldn't leave it alone? I knew you couldn't. It's your nature.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Why does everyone think that space faring people=Super powerful technology?

Here's why I ask.Lets assume for a minute, that some type of life did evolve on mars, and earth, independantly.Now, at some point lets say some type of being(similar to humas evolved there), got to where we are now tech wise.They would have seen earth, probed it, and known about it.Now, uh oh, something is going to destroy our planet(whatever that may be).With our current space tech, we could travel to mars(or to earth if we were on mars).....but it would be very risky.But our planet is going to die soon....so with all the resourses we have we build ships and send them till our demise.6 months to a year later, our ships would have arrived here to earth.But in our fast paced escape we didn't have the time to simply bring everything with us.If they(the people from mars...if they did exist) are like us and used plastics, all the stuff that uses it would start to degrade after 50-60 years from the oil in the plastics leeching out, getting brittle, and breaking down.Space ships easily rust, or would have been dismatled for setting up colonies here on earth.And if compatible with the people here, mating would insue.But I'm on the fence with all this, as i belive after any amout of time over 5000 years, anything but rock would degrade,corrode,rust, or simply have been recycled by now....allowing little to no actual evidence(except is some perfect senario, were some object was well preserved for so long...somehow). In the end though, who cares if we came from mars....it doesn't change the fact that you have to work, and pay bills right here and now, on earth. There is nothing to suggest that these "martians" were anymore advaced than us between 1969-2006....as all they did(assuming that it happened) is get from mars to earth....it could also explain why they got beat up by a bunch of farmers in the accounts of atlantis.Think of how well equiped to fight a bunch of rich people who could afford to leave a dying planet would do against hardened fighters back in a much more unfriendly environment. But who cares?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
When someone deliberately misleads another person then that is a lie. At least where I come from it is.
And then let’s skip forward in your post:

Originally posted by Harte
In that case, he is not only "misleading," he is also lying.


Even you are saying he is lying. If someone deliberately misleads someone to believe in something that is not real
Then isn't that a lie? I know you will argue with me on this. But this is my opinion.


I'm sorry. I hadn't realized that you wanted a quote from Graham Hancock that went something like "I am a liar." It seemed to me that you had requested links to Hancock admitting various errors (or as Byrd said - former ideas of his "which he now rejects.")

I seriously doubt you'll find anything at all from Hancock admitting that he lied. But I am amazed that this criterion is necessary before you'll believe you've been lied to. You certainly are loyal, I'll grant you that!



Originally posted by Stari My search strings are good, the info
About Mr. Hancock that is being presented here is not. Should he have mentioned the carbon dating for the sites in his book? Yes, I do admit he should not have left that information out. But do they have relevance to the nature of his book? I guess that would depend on if you believe carbon dating is a valid method of dating sites. There are olcanoes in South America and when they are active they release carbon into the atmosphere and then drop that carbon on the Earth. When this happens it has to affect any carbon dating procedures done on artifacts.


Such a scenario would cause the carbon-tested date result for Tiahuanico to be older than the actual date of construction, not younger. C14 is created in the atmosphere at a (somewhat) constant rate. C14 dating is accomplished by measuring the ratio of the amount of C14 isotope in a sample to the total carbon in that sample. The only way for a sample to date too young is for that sample to have somehow gotten a large injection of Carbon 14 at some time while it was alive. This occasionally happens. C14 tests are calibrated to compensate for the known eras in which this has occurred. If there were some sort of large influx of C14 in South America (since C14 comes from the atmosphere, such an influx would absolutely be practically worldwide,) dates that we have corroborated through dendrochronological methods in South America and elsewhere would also have to be wrong. How do trees change the way they grow and end up perfectly matching the "erroneous" dates we have established for the era in which it is claimed Tiahuanaco was actually built?

Remember, these dates are not all that long ago. Wood survives to this day with tree rings we can match well to the era, and way, way earlier as well. If Tiahuanaco is misdated by 10,000 years, as Hancock claims, then all other dates used in Archaeology are wrong. The problem with this is, we know for certain some dates. You know, like Roman and Greek times, where they actually wrote down the year a thing was built. So, if the C14 dates are off by that much for Tiahuanaco, then the Ancients had their dates wrong too.


Originally posted by StariAnd thanks for the link to Linda Schele Bio, how did that link help your argument on Hancock misleading readers?
You want us to read your links (sources) but in this case you only gave a bio not her translations.

True. I just wanted to present to you evidence that these Mayan glyphs had actually been translated in the late seventies. I didn't look for the actual translations. How much you wanna bet that it doesn't say anything about Pacal traviling in a spaceship?


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte
Do you expect him to announce this fact on his website?


He has a different method of looking at archeological sites than most archeologists have. Is that bad? He has an open mind when it comes to stuff like carbon dating and what is this picture showing us. That is not a bad thing, it is called science. If a scientist cannot have an open mind and understand that findings change constantly when dealing with archeology then they are in the wrong field.

No, that is certainly not science. It is as if I were to say that there are two tiny monkeys, one bad, one good, living inside the human skull and that this accounts for good and bad moods. To actually believe this, I would have to ignore centuries of other people's hard work on what actually is inside a skull, as well as completely avoid doing any research myself before putting my silly theory out there. Like Hancock did with his Pacal interpretation. The only thing he researched on that subject was how much money vonDaniken made when he originated the idea.


Originally posted by StariHistory has shown that what was known 50 years ago is not what is known today, why? Because people went out and dug and found new evidence to disprove what earlier scientists found and made a theory on. Am I saying what Mr. Hancock has to say about that archeology site is 100 percent correct? Heck no. It is his theory on what he saw during his trip there. He is not a liar for having a theory, if that were true then we all would be liars.

There is quite a difference between working hard to get something right but ending up being wrong, and not even trying to be right but pretending you've thoroughly researched a topic so that readers who (understandably) have little knowledge on these somewhat arcane subjects will be fooled into believing your version because it's on more bookstore shelves, it's way easier to read, and it conforms well with what they've heard all their lives from Hollywood and their churches.


Originally posted by Stari Let me leave you with this though. Yes I did know that you would not leave it alone.. why? Because it is in your nature. Same as it is mine to not leave anything you say go. Is that a bad thing? Heck no.. Do I know all of the facts about every little thing dug up about our history? No way. Learning about our ancient history and the geology of our planet is just a hobby, one that I do take VERY seriously. And one I have had for many many years now.

The above shows that you and I have come to know each other to a somewhat greater degree.


Originally posted by StariYou do not even believe in the possibility of an ancient intelligent civilization living long ago here on Earth, and because of that I can understand why you would never believe that they could have come from Mars. Does this make you a bad person? No way, you have your own theories and you are mainstream with them.

And this part shows that we still have a ways to go. I don't believe that I have ever in my life stated anything resembling what you here attribute to me. The truth is, I only require a reason to hold an opinion as radical as yours. If I were the type to dismiss Hancock and his ilk offhand, without a thought, then how do you suppose I know so much about him? It's because I wanted him to be right! I have investigated these guys (Hancock, vonDaniken, Sitchen, Bauval, etc.) and found where they've tried to screw with the truth. Simple as that. And I didn't set out to debunk anyone, I set out to find out more in my excitement at the idea, this was more than twenty years ago.

I'm still open to the possibility, but I need some evidence, any evidence, before I can believe it.


Originally posted by Stari Sometimes... sometimes I have my own interpretation. Is that bad?


No, actually it's quite good. Sorry if I seem harsh. Seems such a waste to dwell on pseudoscience.

Harte



[edit on 8/12/2006 by Harte]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Space ships easily rust, or would have been dismatled for setting up colonies here on earth.


Thanks for bringing this up Lord. This is true and alot of scientists dismiss the idea of Atlantis because if they were so advanced then we would have found some of there technology. But the truth is that we probably would not find anything. Why? Well Lord posted the reasons above and he did it quite nicely. Thanks.


Originally posted by Harte
That is the absolute height of absurdity, to think that an archaeological site would be dated from a single source.


First, I never said it was the only thing that archeologists tested to get a date for that site. And wouldn't you say that it is absurd to say that dating things around an archeology site can tell us exactly when the rock structures where made? I know you would say yes. But I see it like this. Take Greece for instance, they have rebuilt on top of old cities many many times. Why would you believe that that has not been done in South America as well?


Originally posted by Harte
If the site is much, much older, then we must assume that the original inhabitants left not even a few scraps of evidence of the construction of the site or their subsequent habitation of the site (which, presumably, would at the very least generate some refuse,) and only the later, scruffy natives that came to live there were sloppy enough to leave their "reed baskets" lying around for us to date.


I don't know about you but I would certainly clean up anyone else's garbage before living in an area that was previously inhabited. Although, you do have a good point there and maybe one day archeologist will find remenents of an earlier civilization that lived there.


Originally posted by Harte
You certainly are loyal, I'll grant you that!


I'm not loyal, I just need more than some one who obviously does not believe a word this man says, saying to me that Mr. Hancock is a liar. To tell you the truth I only saw documentaries on Mr. Hancocks theories on TV. That is until about a year ago when I finally broke down and bought his book.. F.O.G.

I had my own theories long before I read F.O.G.


Originally posted by Harte
Such a scenario would cause the carbon-tested date result for Tiahuanico to be older than the actual date of construction, not younger.


Yes I know this, that is why I wanted everyone else reading this to understand why I am not 100 percent happy with carbon dating objects. It is not accurate.


Originally posted by Harte
The only way for a sample to date too young is for that sample to have somehow gotten a large injection of Carbon 14 at some time while it was alive. This occasionally happens. C14 tests are calibrated to compensate for the known eras in which this has occurred.


I found what you said here really interesting. For one thing you say that scientists are compensating for the known eras that large carbon 14 occured. What if large carbon 14 deposits happened that the scientists do not know of. It could most certainly happen. What if a meteor broke up in the atmosphere and it had lots of carbon in it? It could most certainly happen. Scientists do not know all.. take this for example:

The Universe Could Be Larger Than Previously Thought

Notice the headline says Could Be, that is probably because scientists do not know it all and when new things are found then what we know today will be different from what we know tomorrow.


Originally posted by Harte
How much you wanna bet that it doesn't say anything about Pacal traviling in a spaceship?


How much you wanna bet it talks about the Gods from the heavens?


Originally posted by Harte
No, that is certainly not science. It is as if I were to say that there are two tiny monkeys, one bad, one good, living inside the human skull and that this accounts for good and bad moods.


I do not in any way want this thread turned into a discussion about evolution, but I do have to say this because it is just fitting to your monkeys in the head skull post. It would be like archeologists finding a skull here and there and sometimes only finding a few fragments of skulls and piecing them together and saying that we became modern humans solely on evolution, even though there are holes galore in the "evolutionary tree".

My point? This is not science either but it happend and it was taught in schools to be a fact, even though children where never told that there are many holes in the "evolutionary tree" that scientist cant explain other than, the skulls just havent been found yet.

Harte, why do you not believe in even a possiblity that an advanced ancient civilization did rise up over 12 thousand years ago? How do you explain the fact that structures all over the world resemble each other? What about the gods coming down from the heavens, and what about the flood stories that match all around the world?

Ok, I have to hit it. I will be looking forward to your answer Harte. And please anyone jump in here with your own opinions. Whether it be main stream or not, all theories are welcome on this thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
First, I never said it was the only thing that archeologists tested to get a date for that site.


Sorry, I took this:

Originally posted by StariThe only thing that I am reading here that Hancock didn't bother mentioning in his book was Carbon dating. Well, why would he mention it? Wasn't Tiahuanaco carbon dated from a reed basket? One of which could have been left by anyone anywhere down the timeline of history? It was either Tiahuanaco or Machu Picchu that was dated with a reed basket.

to mean only dated from a reed basket.


Originally posted by Stari
And wouldn't you say that it is absurd to say that dating things around an archeology site can tell us exactly when the rock structures where made? I know you would say yes. But I see it like this. Take Greece for instance, they have rebuilt on top of old cities many many times. Why would you believe that that has not been done in South America as well?

Carbon 14 dating does not presume to tell us exactly anything. Depending on how old the result, and the condition of the sample, a range of dates is what C14 dating provides.

Most ancient sites have been built over other more ancient sites, yes. That is why researchers dig far below the oldest artifactual layers they find at a site, in order to determine if such is the case. These older "covered over" cities you mentioned were located this way, after all. Also, they were dated with the same methods used at Tiahuanaco.

But in all, yes, of course no dating system is perfect. Tiahuanaco (as a monumental settlement,) however, dates to the Common Era. By "monumental," I mean that human habitation of the site dates back to 1500 BCE, but the erection of the monumental structures there occurred in the Common Era, sometime in the first millenium, probably early in the first millenium. The presumed date is around 500 AD, maybe slightly earlier.

Hancock, and presumably yourself, would place it in an era 30 times older than this! Now, C14 has it's drawbacks, but if it's off by a factor of 30 then there is just no such thing as an archaeological record. This sort of margin of error would place the invention of writing in Sumeria sometime between 3500 BCE and 163,000 BCE!

If radiocarbon dating is not accurate enough for you, even though it's been matched precisely with tree ring data going back to the end of the last Ice Age, then I don't understand what kind of dating system you are using when you choose to entertain Hancock's ideas about Tiahuanaco. Here's what we know and what Hancock wants us to believe and why:


Radiocarbon (C-14) dates and pottery analysis tell us that, although the first human occupation appeared no earlier than ca. 1500 BC (possibly much later: this date is suspect), the site only started to become a monumental city around 600 BC and continued in use until about AD 1000; its peak was between AD 100 and 900. Field surveys of the surrounding valley have uncovered numerous satellite settlements of the great city, marked by similar architectural features (on a smaller scale) and the same pottery (esp. Tiwanaku styles IV and V). Pottery analysis, a staple in archaeological analysis, also shows the proliferation of Tiwanaku styles IV and V around the Central Andean region, unearthed in confirmed archaeological contexts. The interpretation of this distribution is unclear: was it due to a Tiwanaku empire or a cultural and/or economic sphere of influence? Further work may help answer this crucial question. The collapse of the Tiwanaku state is also something of a mystery, as is always the case when a complex and impressive culture disappears -- 1500 years later, people are still debating why the Roman Empire fell, or even if it "fell" at all! In the case of Tiwanaku, one possibility is that a famine induced by drought crippled the irrigation system and led to internal turmoil. More work is needed to test this hypothesis, however. Thus, our state of knowledge about Tiwanaku is pretty good, but not perfect. It is improving all the time, the more work is done on the site and its environs. This is a situation entirely typical of "conventional" archaeological investigations -- a picture emerges gradually, as the evidence is collected, collated, and hypotheses developed to explain it.

Mr, Hancock's extensive research failed to bring to his attention any of these works and he does not cite them in either Fingerpints of the Gods or Heaven's Mirror. His statement that "I think what's important to stress about Tiahuanaco is that this is a mysterious site about which very little is known" should be amended to "I think what's important to stress about Tiahuanaco is that this is a mysterious site about which I know very little." That would be closer to the truth.

Instead of consulting any of these works, Mr. Hancock bypasses them and relies on the more than 50 year old imaginings of Arthur Posnansky, who studied the site in the early 1900s to the 1940s. Neither an archaeologist nor a geologist, Posnansky became convinced that the alignment of certain stones at Tiwanaku with the solstices and peculiar marks on the mountains around Tiwanaku suggested it had been a port city some 17,000 years ago. His conclusions, published in 1943 in Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man have never been taken seriously. And with good reason. The "shoreline" Posnansky identified on surrounding mountains was the result of the formation of the river valley in which Tiwanaku sits (see C. Clapperton, Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of South America [Elseiver. New York, 1993]) and the stones cannot be aligned with stars, since the Spanish smashed the idolatrous site when they found it, and it was used for centuries afterward as a handy quarry for building materials by locals, including the inhabitants of La Paz. Travellers as late as the 1920s saw statues and stones from Tiwanaku re-used in settlements all round the region. At the site itself, the stones aren't in their original positions. Many were moved and smashed when a railway was built through the centre of the site in the 19th century. Given all this, you can't argue from star-alignments with stones that the site is 17,000 years old; that would be pure guesswork. Hancock admits this in his BBC interview when he says: "I think the astronomical indications on the site are intriguing but not conclusive" and elsewhere "the site itself has been used as a quarry for at least the last 150 years by the builders of La Paz and other areas in Bolivia has certainly damaged and devastated that site." So what use are star-alignments, then? Finally, alternative but less spectacular explanations for the alignment of the buildings are also available, but go entirely unmentioned by Hancock.

Source

As for my opinion, I'm sure that the Archaeologists haven't gotten everything right at Tiahuanaco yet. Check this out, it's the real mystery:


Tiwanaku is one of only three places in the ancient world to use metal I-clamps to join cut blocks together, the others being ancient Egypt and Angkor Wat, Cambodia - both of which figure prominently in Hancock's cosmology. Those I-clamps at Tiwanaku are made of a particular alloy of iron, copper and arsenic that requires a smelter operating at very high temperatures. A scanning electron microscope determined that the clamps were poured into place, necessitating a portable smelter. All this in an area current theory denies an iron age. While Hancock argues baselessly for intervention from outside, at the very least one must concede that Tiwanaku's citizens had a high level of technology.

Source

I'm out of characters now. I'll return for more on this later.

Harte



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Harte, why do you not believe in even a possiblity that an advanced ancient civilization did rise up over 12 thousand years ago? How do you explain the fact that structures all over the world resemble each other? What about the gods coming down from the heavens, and what about the flood stories that match all around the world?


This concept of the flood stories matching has been discussed here several times before. I have spent countless hours researching it myself. What I came to discover, and I will link to my conclusions in a moment, is that there are only a few flood stories that match closely enough to be called nearly "verbatim", and those all come from Mesopotamia, where there has been proven to be a large flood over the valley around 5500 B.C
Here is a link to a thread discussing the flood in detail. You will find Harte, Byrd, Shane, and many others providing factual documentation on the history of a Great Global Flood, or lack thereof.
The Great Flood-Myth or Fabrication?

And for your own research, if you havent already found a suitable source, I came across this during my own.
Flood Myths From Cultures Around The World

This one is a thread from some time ago regarding the similarities between the Sumerian flood myths and the Genesis accounts. The debate carried on for some time, but towards the end there is some interesting information on the epics that do seem to coincide. The theory arose that there may have been a common origin that was just passed through to different cultures as the original broke apart and traveled to different places. Babel-Complex...etc.
Gilgamesh and the Bible.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Sorry, I took this:

to mean only dated from a reed basket.


Apology excepted. Thanks for pointing out that I didn't say only from a reed basket. Archeologists can date many organic materials left behind from anyone who visited the area through out the thousands of years.


Originally posted by Harte
Carbon 14 dating does not presume to tell us exactly anything. Depending on how old the result, and the condition of the sample, a range of dates is what C14 dating provides.


Exactly my point, carbon 14 does not tell us exactly anything. That was my point all along



Originally posted by Harte
The presumed date is around 500 AD, maybe slightly earlier.


Thanks Harte, that is exactly my point again. It is only a presumed date.

Definition to presumed

And why is it only a presumed date? Because archeologists can only date organic material for the site, not the stone itself:


Originally posted by Harte
Lastly, you most certainly can "date the rocks." Just not through carbon dating. Of course, dating stone accomplishes nothing in Archaeology. The stone is billions of years old in many cases. Beyond some geological factoid, what would we learn from dating stone?


And since there is no known way to date a rock structure to see when it has been built there is no way to say 100 percent (without doubt) that the structures could be older than what archeologists say.

Now with all of that being said I would like to quote you this:


Originally posted by Harte
Hancock, and presumably yourself, would place it in an era 30 times older than this!


And then respond to you by saying even though I am debating with you the age of the structure, it does not mean that I believe it is older than what archeologists say it is, I am saying it is quite possible that it is. More digging and research would have to be done. Like I have said many times before, what we know today will surely change tomorrow.

Why do I keep it open for debate? Because Plato said that Poseidon sent out his 10 sons to build their own civilizations. So out there somewhere and I hope someday we will find 10 great structures and my thought is that it will be found in South America.



He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory.


External Source Link


Originally posted by Harte
If radiocarbon dating is not accurate enough for you, even though it's been matched precisely with tree ring data going back to the end of the last Ice Age


The last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago and that is around the date that Plato gives for the end of Atlantis.

Did Plato know about the ice age? Did Plato even know what an ice age is? Around 12,000 years ago this planet went through terrible changes all over the world. How could he have known that?


Originally posted by Harte
Check this out, it's the real mystery


Well some people might think that it is not really a mystery at all. The Atlanteans was an intelligent civilization.


Originally posted by EdenKaia
Here is a link to a thread discussing the flood in detail.


Thanks for the links Eden, I will read them on my next 2 days off. The links look like an interesting read.

It sounds to me like the flood stories and even "Did Atlantis ever exist" has already been covered in other threads. That is not what this thread was meant for, but some people can not understand that there are some people who do believe in Atlantis and has already covered all of the arguements against Atlantis existing.

There are holes in the arguements for and against Atlantis existing. This discussion could go on indefinitely. Well just until archeological evidence proves one theory over the other, without a doubt.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   


I seriously doubt you'll find anything at all from Hancock admitting that he lied.

I don't think Graham Hancock is a liar
i just think he lacks the intelligence to see where he went wrong in certain areas and lacks the ability to do the proper research to discover the actual truth of his own claims
he is however a self confessed anarchist who doesn't like hierarchies and power structures
this was his motivaton in penning a book that claimed that archaeologists were hiding the truth from you all.
he doesn't like that qualified and organised people tell us what happened in our own history
he thinks he can do better with out of date information collected from all the crank psuedo authors that went before him, giving them a twist with his journalistic skill to make everyone think its something new
it isn't
most of his "research" can be traced back to David Hatcher Childress, Robert Temple or Zechariah Sitchin
as such it is worthless



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
What about Yonaguni structures? Professor Masaaki Kimura said that there was no evidence of a civilization living on the island 12,000 years ago and yet the structures do exist. The last time the structures where above water was 12,000 years ago, prior to the last ice age.

My resource for this information: History Mysteries- Japans Mysterious Pyramids. (2000)

Yonaguni structures

What is my point here? If the people of Yonaguni Island never found any evidence of a people who used to inhabit that area, like no garbage was ever found, then it is possible that the structures in South America could be much older than what archeologists want you to believe.

It is worth keeping an open mind about it.

Marduk,

Above is another reason why dating structures by means of carbon dating organic material around the archeological site is not a good way to date structures. And just because there is a lack of garbage found that date back to the date in question does not mean that the structures could not have been built that long ago.

2002 interview with Professor Masaaki Kimura Very interesting read.




[edit on 8/15/2006 by Stari]

[edit on 8/15/2006 by Stari]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   


prior to the last ice age.

you mean during the last ice age

you have to remember that this is the same Masaaki Kimura who speculated that Japan was one end of the sunken continent of Mu long before Yonaguni was discovered. His books weren't doing very well until he proclaimed Yonaguni as proof of a sunken continent in the pacific.
in other words he has an agenda
if you know much about the origins of the myth of Mu your alarm bells should be screeching already
the area is geologically unstable as is much of the rest of Japan and estimate for when it was above land vary from his and graham hancocks estimate of 12,000bce based on wishful thinking to 2000bce based on the actual evidence.
Yonaguni itself isn't particularly special, there are many structures still on dry land that were built by the Jomon culture that are almost identical to whats under the water
Masaaki Kimura has an agenda because his books are selling really well now he has associated himself with Yonaguni
Graham Hancocks book underworld sold really well because he associated himself with Yonaguni, despite the fact that an unbiased geologist (Dr Wolf Wichmann) he invited along to add a stamp of orthodox approval to his book disagreed with him on almost every point

the only real discussion about Yonaguni is how much of it is natural geological features and how much man made
as everyone seems to admit there was no known civilisation capable of building it in 12,000bce
that should really say to you that it wasn't built in 12,000bce not that some as of yet completely unknown race were building things to the same design as a verified group were building millenia later on the shoreline. Some people try to refute this by saying "ah yes but perhaps the later group were copying what they saw at Yonaguni". they seem to forget that they are the ones claiming that it sunk before the latter group were on the scene
occhams razor ?

Basically it doesnt prove anything and it doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesnt require it to sell their books to people who because of ignorance (not in a bad way) don't know any better
its as simple as that







much older than what archeologists want you to believe.

this is one of the best ideas that Psuedoscientists ever came up with
there is no global conspiracy to hide the truth from members of the public about the age of anything
most archaeologists spend a long time and expense getting qualified and then work in a field that doesnt pay very well either
theres just no reason why these dedicated people would hide the truth from anyone
believe it or not universities that do degree courses for trainee archaeologists do not hand out a questionaire of which the first question is "1. do you want to hide the truth from the public"
the only people who do hide the truth from the public are people like Hancock and Kimura who's bank accounts are reliant on people not finding out that they are hiding all the evidence that disagrees with them



[edit on 15-8-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Yonaguni?

the eyes see what they want to, and in this case, people are seeing ruins.
there isn't any evidence to support that they were man-made, and therefore, they aren't ruins.

japan has PLENTY of ancient artifacts from the pre 5k BC period, but none of it points to anything that could create something on that scale, out of what are essentially mountains, with that precision.

until there is concrete proof that Yonaguni is manmade, please don't use it

if you do have concrete proof, please display it here




top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join