It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The case for an ancient race

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Ok, I was recently reading some literature about Atlantis, and the great ancient monumnets and megalithic structures, and I started thinking,
"Why could'nt a race have existed in the past that was close or beyond our technological level.




The case for ancient humans.


We know that humans, as in Homo Sapiens have been around for the last 100,000 years or so possibly even longer, now it's only been the last 6,000 to 7,000 years that what we refer to as civilization has been around, now why in the thousands of years that we've been humans before that, had we not become civilised or developed technology?

What if, say 24,000 years ago (30,000BCE) the hunter gatherers discovered agriculture, and all thats required to create a fixed living enviroment like our ancestors 6,000 years ago did,
now assuming they evolved technologivcally at a rate similiar to ours,
than they could have been far more advanced than us,
however, they may not have been either, it may have been that, at the most as advanced technologically as Victorian West Europe/America.

Now, one of the arguments against this would be "where are the remains from there civilization?", and that is a good question, but saty they were wiped out in 15,000BCE by a major geological event, like a sudden shift of the Earth's land masses, such an event wouls surely not just kill off a massive amount of people, but would do a good job of pretty thoroughly wiping out alot of there civilizations accomplishments.


The case for a non-human civilization

Now, before I go on, I don't mean aliens from some star system or Mars or whatnot, what I mean is a species that was indiginous(SP?) to Earth, developing sentience and such.
Dinosaurs, the ancient reptiles that once walked the Earth.

What we know about these enigmatic creatures, comes straight to us from the fossils and preserved specimens we find, and our overall puzzle solving skills.
There are, in some cases that we're not even totally sure what the dinosaur really looked like, just because we have all the bones,
does'nt mean we know what they looked like completely, in general yes, but completely no.
For instance, if we had no elephants, or preserved mammoths, and we found a complete elephant skeleton, we might not know that the elephant/mammoth had a long trunk, and thusly the recreations we would make for Scientific and entertainment would be trunkless elephants.

Now, we know that dinosaurs existed far far longer than we have, an example my biology teacher liked using was this.

"Imagine that the time Dinosaurs ruled the planet was one year,
the time we have been around in comparison, is about one second.

Now when I think about all the time those Dino's had, it occurs to me, why should'nt one of them evolved and become sentient, if they existed millions of years ago, and were wiped out millions of years ago, than we'd have no chance of finding artifacts from there time.


Well, that's really all I have to say for this, I just felt an overwhelming need to make a post like this.

So, I would like everyones opinions, regardless of if you think it's all nonsense, or you think it hapened, all are welcome.

I'd especially like some reasons why this could not happen be stated, and I mean scientific, not religious, thats the one thing, I'd like this to be a scientificly based thread.

So, yeah, post what you think.

EDIT:
Changed thread title to less stupid sounding name.

[edit on 2/13/2006 by iori_komei]




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Hello I would read your post but I'm going to bed maybe tomorrow. Keep the intro quick and brief as tip here so that it can be read in one go people just zoom in and out and go to the next post. its sounds intersting but I think write a quick intro and answere the rest with the information you have. It can be tiring at night (uk time) reading everything.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
That would be a good idea, if it was more of something I just wanted points for..
No offense I mean, I'm not trying to seem rude.

But I figure, that if I put that mych work into a post, than the people who are truly interested, and knowledgable(sp?) about it, will take the time to read it al, and than create a well composed, well thought out response/post.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Here are some links to sites of relevent subject matter. They range from very credible to very incredible. In order, they are about: OOParts, Reptiloids, The Giza Pyramid, The ancient world geometric grid, and the top ten ancient mystery objects.

www.forbiddenarcheology.com...

www.sabon.org...

www.world-mysteries.com...

www.earthmatrix.com...

paranormal.about.com...

That is a start anyway. The book linked below gives a credible way that these ancient ones were destroyed, based on ample evidence, C14 dating,
and the authors conclusions.

www.knowledge.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ok, I was recently reading some literature about Atlantis, and the great ancient monumnets and megalithic structures, and I started thinking,
"Why could'nt a race have existed in the past that was close or beyond our technological level.


Because it would have left traces.



What if, say 24,000 years ago (30,000BCE) the hunter gatherers discovered agriculture, and all thats required to create a fixed living enviroment like our ancestors 6,000 years ago did,
now assuming they evolved technologivcally at a rate similiar to ours,
than they could have been far more advanced than us,
however, they may not have been either, it may have been that, at the most as advanced technologically as Victorian West Europe/America.

Now, one of the arguments against this would be "where are the remains from there civilization?", and that is a good question, but saty they were wiped out in 15,000BCE by a major geological event, like a sudden shift of the Earth's land masses, such an event wouls surely not just kill off a massive amount of people, but would do a good job of pretty thoroughly wiping out alot of there civilizations accomplishments.


There would still be a lot of material left, and in fact it would be pretty fresh and carbon-dateable as well as (in some areas) tree ring dateable. We do, in fact, find sites from 15,000 BCE -- that would be the Clovis Culture here in North America and there's some evidence that suggests humans with stone age technology in South American in 20,000 BCE.

In Europe and Africa, the evidence goes back further. Stone age all the way.

And no, there was no huge cataclysm in 15,000 BCE. Last one occurred with the meteor striking the Earth in about 60,000,000 BCE.

That kind of cataclysm would reduce the human population to a few thousand people, and that's an entirely too small gene pool to present the diversity we see today in cultures and races.



Dinosaurs, the ancient reptiles that once walked the Earth.

What we know about these enigmatic creatures, comes straight to us from the fossils and preserved specimens we find, and our overall puzzle solving skills.
There are, in some cases that we're not even totally sure what the dinosaur really looked like, just because we have all the bones,
does'nt mean we know what they looked like completely, in general yes, but completely no.


Well... yes. However, we do know brain case sizes and so forth and we know limb construction. Haven't seen any with opposable thumbs, which are necessary for gripping tools. Nor do we see tools nor do we see sites (even when there are egg clutches or group deaths) that indicate the dinosaurs built anything (such as a dome to protect the fragile eggs.)

There are no weapon marks on dinosaur bones.

Right now I'm doing some volunteer work in a paleontology lab, and I'm cleaning up dinosaur bones from a dig for researchers. While I'm no expert, I'm learning a lot and I can pass along questions if I don't know the answer myself.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Here is an excerpt from an article which is on the lack of human genetic diversity.
'Comparing the differences between human mitochondrial DNA around the world with the differences found within just one small troop of chimpanzees or gorillas in central Africa shows that a single ape troop contains greater diversity than all of humanity! In fact relative to many other species, we're almost clones of each other. This is consistent with a recent origin for our species and also with the view, held by some scientists, that there was a bottleneck some time in our recent evolutionary past. It seems likely that within the last 200,000 years, the human population went down to a very small number, to maybe only 10,000 or 20,000 people, reducing the genetic diversity that gave rise to today's population.'
Here is the link.

www.fathom.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Here is an excerpt from an article which is on the lack of human genetic diversity.
'Comparing the differences between human mitochondrial DNA around the world with the differences found within just one small troop of chimpanzees or gorillas in central Africa shows that a single ape troop contains greater diversity than all of humanity! In fact relative to many other species, we're almost clones of each other...


Blackguard,

I believe this is normally explained by anthropologists by the theory that H. Sapiens is really a relative newcomer when compared with other mammals (this lack of diversity of humans is relative to all mammals, not just primates.) The theory is that early humans, or their predecessors, almost starved. The development of better tools and better brains is what saved us, under that theory anyway.

Byrd,

I will certainly not put myself in a position where I support the idea of any ancient "advanced" civilization as described in this thread, but I would like to point out a couple of things.

Even the huge catastrophe you mentioned 60,000,000 years ago ( that's the K-T extinction, I believe) would likely not have erased all evidence of any advanced civilization in and of itself, though it's possible that 60 million years might have.

There are several theorists out there proposing that large catastrophes have befallen H. Sapiens, some of them quite recently, all things considered. Here's a link to a conference on this type of subject that was held back in 1997:
Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations:
Archaeological, Geological and Astronomical Perspectives
A conference at Fitzwilliam College. Cambridge. 11th-13th July 1997


Here's a quote from a very interesting abstract presented at that conference:



Geomorphological signatures, and playas and alluvial fan deposits, all point at a severe flooding catastrophe in central Tunisia c. 1000 B.C. Precipitation must have exceeded 10,000 mm in a very short period. Human activity during this period concentrated around wells, with an increased need of heating as indicated by the very frequent occurrence of unusually large fireplaces with heating stones imbedded in charcoal (Larsson and Franzen, in press). The sediments deposited indicate severe ground frost in an initial phase, i.e. large balls of loose dune sand, imbedded in the lower part of the stratigraphies, objects which could only have been transported in a frozen form. In spite of being found in a 5 m thick sediment sequence the fire places have the same apparent age according to 14 C-datings, indicating an extreme rate of sedimentation. The playa investigated, Chott Nejla, is normally dried out However, after heavy floods, it is a fresh water lake, with a maximum depth of 15 m, if filled up to the thresholds. At the natural playa outlet during pluvial periods, from an archaeological point of view, a very rich site was found with signs of a perhaps continuous settlement from 9000 B.C. to Roman times, uncommon for the Capisien culture (Balout, 1955; Larsson and Franzen, in press). The sediment sequence at the playa centre shows that the most abrupt transition from aridity to very humid conditions at 1000 B.C., was followed by a very long lake stage. The lower lake stage sediments of this event contain glassy spherules (5-100 gm dia) with a very varying composition, from pure Fe-types to types with the same basic composition as those found in the K/T-transition (e.g. Koeberl and Sigurdsson, 1992). Other outstanding wet periods found in the Tunisian material are 900-1000 A.D. and 1600-1700 A.D.


There's much more of this abstract concerning various other locations HERE

My point being that it is possible that perhaps some pockets of humanity have been wiped out in the past, and some of these pockets may have been somewhat further advanced than the general population at the time.

This sort of thing could also account for the lack of diversity Blackguard mentions, if some unknown and relatively minor catastrophe struck at an inopportune time and place during the early history of H. Sapiens.

It still cannot, however, provide any support to the theory proposed in the opening post in this thread.

Harte



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It seems likely that within the last 200,000 years, the human population went down to a very small number, to maybe only 10,000 or 20,000 people, reducing the genetic diversity that gave rise to today's population.'

Yes, I'm aware of that.

However, the original scenario proposed only 12,000 years. Diversity is far greater than could be accounted for in such a short time period.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Wow, I really got to pay more attention to my threads...did'nt even see there were more responses til just now.


When I said 15,000BCE, and the other dates, I was just using different years, I was'nt saying those years specifically.

I read a book "Atlantis blueprints" by Rand Flem-ath and another guy I cant remember the name of, it was over a year ago, that some time around 9,640BCE there was a crust moval of about 30 degrees in a short amount of time.
I mentioned an event like that in my origonal post.

Anyways, that seems to me like it would cause massive devestation to any existing edifices.



I'm glad I've gotten responses on both sides of the subject, (even though I am sorta intimidated by Byrd.).



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I read a book "Atlantis blueprints" by Rand Flem-ath and another guy I cant remember the name of, it was over a year ago, that some time around 9,640BCE there was a crust moval of about 30 degrees in a short amount of time.


No, and proveably so by a number of methods... including the solar/lunar megalith calendars such as Stonehenge.


Anyways, that seems to me like it would cause massive devestation to any existing edifices.

And earth and water and mountains and so on and so forth.


I'm glad I've gotten responses on both sides of the subject, (even though I am sorta intimidated by Byrd.).


Eh, don't be. I'm just one of those overeducated goofballs who has spent way too much time researching this particular topic in order to answer folks questions on it. I've been known to be wrong, though, and will freely admit when I'm in error.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It seems likely that within the last 200,000 years, the human population went down to a very small number, to maybe only 10,000 or 20,000 people, reducing the genetic diversity that gave rise to today's population.'

However, the original scenario proposed only 12,000 years. Diversity is far greater than could be accounted for in such a short time period.

In the book by Allen and Delair, it is even less, around 11 500 years ago, if I recall. The time vs. diversity correlation is beyond my knowledge. But I do know that it did not take very long to turn cabbage into cauliflower, broccoli, and brussel sprouts.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Certainly, there was plenty of time for several species of dinosaur to evolve into beings that looked and maybe even thought a lot like we do. We were helped along in our evolution by wild climate changes, but the same thing could have happened over a longer period of time in the dinosaur days.

The problem with finding a species like that is still the lack of artifacts. Things get buried, swallowed by volcanic debris. And what if those dino-people had particular religious beliefs such that it required them to obliterate their bones after death? Crushed, fed to a big meat-eater, something like that. We wouldn't necessarily find fossils of them, then.

But it seems like there would be a few things found here and there that were extremely sophisticated as well as old. Somebody mentioned polished precious stones. Some kind of technology.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I read a book "Atlantis blueprints" by Rand Flem-ath and another guy I cant remember the name of, it was over a year ago, that some time around 9,640BCE there was a crust moval of about 30 degrees in a short amount of time.

No offense meant, here, but he's a textbook example of the very worst pseudoscience.

A crust movement is always accompanied by earthquakes. The most massive earthquakes (Alaska in the 1960's, recent ones in Afghanistan, the California quakes, etc) were caused by crustal movements of less than a hundred feet -- in a LOCAL AREA only.

Now... the Earth's circumference is around 24,000 miles and so a 30 degree movement would be on the order of 2,000 miles.

If moving one section of the crust a few hundred feet produces an earthquake of magnitude 7 on the Richter scale and knocks down buildings and causes fissures to appear and so forth -- imagine what the movement of a mile would do. Or ten miles.

See why that's "silly science"?

In fact, such a movement (IF possible, and it really isn't) would produce so much heat that the crust would turn into a sea of molten rock.

Nothing would survive.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Yeah, I did'nt believe that part to much, it definately seems/ed extremely improbable to me, that was actually both an argument for and against my origonal post.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
First Dinosaurs are not reptiles. They are now theire own class or group.
Dinosaurs could have spawned a intelligent species. Which may have existed for a short time. Anyway too short for them to develop a civilization like ours currently. However there is a possibillity that they could get up comparable to bronze age or something similair but were really rare and got extinct before they could develop futher.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
First Dinosaurs are not reptiles. They are now theire own class or group.
Dinosaurs could have spawned a intelligent species. Which may have existed for a short time. Anyway too short for them to develop a civilization like ours currently. However there is a possibillity that they could get up comparable to bronze age or something similair but were really rare and got extinct before they could develop futher.


Well no, they'd have alot of time to develop, to put it into perspective, dinosaurs existed a full year, while we have only existed about a half a minute.

My biology teacher once said that.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd



Well... yes. However, we do know brain case sizes and so forth and we know limb construction. Haven't seen any with opposable thumbs, which are necessary for gripping tools. Nor do we see tools nor do we see sites (even when there are egg clutches or group deaths) that indicate the dinosaurs built anything (such as a dome to protect the fragile eggs.)

There are no weapon marks on dinosaur bones.



You forgot about Troodon it indeed had a opposable finger.

Troodon was the smartest dinosaur ever discovered. It was bipedal, had a opposable finger large eyes the largest brain to body mass ratio of any dinosaur. In many ways it was more human then our shrew like ancestors of the time. Infact it was likely our ancestors main predator at the time since it was thought to have such good night vision and the night was until then where mammals found security

Most dinosaurs had brains that did not come close to filling their skulls. Troodon brain was so big it left impressions on the inside of the skull.

If it wasn't for a twist of fate Troodons ancestors very well might have went on to inherit the earth right now perhaps studing little bones of a long extinct shrew like animal pondering what could have been it this little creature never died out.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You forgot about Troodon it indeed had a opposable finger.

It did, indeed (as did other dinos and as do some mammals today) -- but, as you can see from the skeleton of the creature, the thumb is not exactly made for tool-making:
muse.museum.montana.edu...

Compare that with the human hand (wrist bones and thumbs close to the length of the other digits; a hand made for toolmaking): www.boneclones.com...

and the hands of chimps (very limited tool making because their thumbs aren't in the same kind of relationship to their hands as human thumbs are): www.boneclones.com...



Troodon was the smartest dinosaur ever discovered. It was bipedal, had a opposable finger large eyes the largest brain to body mass ratio of any dinosaur.

The brain was about the size of a modern ostrich brain. It was larger (in proportion to its body mass) than the proto-mammals of the time, but it weren't no Einstein.

HOWEVER -- when considering "how evolution might have happened if the dinos hadn't died", the Troodont is one of the candidates used for "Most Likely to Succeed" species around.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Yeah it kind of pales when compared to the master piece that is the human hand.
Troodon had a pretty good start though it really seemed to be one of the few dinosaurs that were moving towards getting smarter rather then bigger and stronger.

I think some people claim it might have been as smart as a modern Coyote but I could be wrong about that

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I don't know that we'll ever know, Shadow, but I like the idea of comparing Troodont to something like a modern coyote (well... I also like coyotes, but that's another story!) It was a pretty efficient predator, and predators tend to be just a bit ...err... smarter than the prey.

It's fun to speculate what changes might have happened to them -- and to look back at the earlier forms of the Troodont and see how it changed over time.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join