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.

 

Civilization on this Planet

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
i am starting this thread to build on thoughts originally generated in soficrow's ATSNN article entitled The Changing Earth: Explaining Extinctions, Atlantis and Everything.

now, i will start by admitting that i know a little bit about alot of things, but am no scholar by any stretch of the imagination. so please feel free to pick it apart with knowledgeable thoughts of your own....but please try to keep an open mind as you do so. okay, here we go:

how many times have we, on this planet, risen to our current level of technological advancement only to be lost again into the abyss of ignorance? think about it for a second folks. if tomorrow some devastating event occurred, be it a large meteor or a nuclear war, how many of us would actually know how to survive? how many in this technologically advanced civilization of ours actually know how to do the simple things that would allow us to survive? in being as advanced as we are, we have forgotten the simple things (or more correctly, become dependent upon others to perform the simple things for us). do you know how to build your own permanent shelter that will remain structurally sound for generations? carpenters do, but what about the rest of us? do you know how to grow your own food, can or otherwise preserve it, and save some for the next years planting? farmers do, but what about the rest of us?

what about things that are more advanced, but still relatively simple? if you are dependent upon insulin, do you know how to make it? do any but a select few know how to make antibiotics? do you know how to make firearms and the necessary reloading equipment and materials? do you know how to hunt, or dress game without spoiling the meat?

here is my theory: we have been either at this level or close to it many times before, and yet have never been able to pass this particular level of advancement for many reasons, ranging from impacts of celestial bodies to our own experimentation with the atom. a lot of folks will of course say "where is the evidence snaf?"

well think about this my friends: glaciers have a tendency to completely destroy anything manmade due to their size and movements.....literally crushing anything in their paths. iron and other metals are torn apart and eventually rust into oblivion. brick buildings are torn apart and turned back into the simple elements they were made from. our seas hide all kinds of unknown artifacts that, when brought to the light of day, are explained by mainstream scientists as "normal rock formations." there is no doubt that glaciers covered much of the most livable parts of the world (areas in which large civilizations are likely to form), and that rising ocean levels covered a good bit of the coastal areas...this much mainstream science agrees with. the artifacts that do remain in areas of more stable climates, such as the sphinx and pyramids, have never been accurately dated...and by that i mean accurately enough that there are no doubts left as to their actual origins and time of construction. hell, we dont even have a firm, unimpeachable theory as to how they were constructed. i am beginning to believe that mainstream scientists are starting to realize this for themselves, and for one reason or another do not want to change the fabric of scientific knowledge as we know it. oh, how i would love to have been able to peruse the library of alexandria.

this theory (and again, as i have no proof, i am simply putting it forth as MHO) would explain alot of anomolies that mainstream science either ignores or attempts to explain away as "natural." things such as uranium deposits that would appear to have been previously mined. anomolous artifacts that have no place in modern archeology. even other theories on this site that are called "quacky", such as strange rock formations on the moon that suggest intentional arrangement, or strange lines on mars that suggest mining operations. maybe they appear the way they do because we've already been there, and such anomolous propagations are simply our own artifacts from previous technologically advanced civilizations that explored and attempted to set up mining operations on both celestial bodies.

to delve even further in the direction of what some would call lunacy, what if we managed to get so far as to actually send some of our people out of this solar system in exploration of the universe before we fell back into savagery on our home planet for another cycle? what if these explorers from tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago actually found other planets to colonize and produce their own civilizations, but due to the great distance and time involved, have forgotten their origins as well? could they not be the "aliens" that most here clearly believe in? "battlestar galactica" did not start as an original idea by glen larson, but as an expansion of theories already put forth by what mainstream scientists would call "kooks."

this would also explain theories of civilizations such as the atlanteans. for some reason these ideas would seem to appeal to our collective subconscious on some level, or we wouldnt have scifi shows such as "stargate" that last for over ten years, or "battlestar" that are revived after twenty years to continue the story.

to move into another direction for those of you who are religious (as i am myself), what if adam and eve werent necessarily the very first humans, but instead simply the first of one group of survivors of another cyclic holocaust to start an oral rendition of history in an attempt to retain some knowledge of our past lives? not necessarily the first humans, but simply people who believed that they were spared God's wrath because He wanted them to start over as his chosen people to hopefully end the cycle so that we might advance beyond the destruction phase? this would explain how their sons and daughters were able to find partners to continue their line...converts from other groups of survivors who did not believe as they did.

the Maya believed that the world goes through such cycles (and obviously many of you as well, considering all of the 2012 threads out there), so why is it so hard for our modern world to believe the same? if we really take the time to look, instead of believing that we are smarter than we really are and already know all about our past, if we look into the past with an open mind instead of a preconceived notion of what is there, imagine what we might discover about ourselves....and even more importantly, imagine what we might learn that could save us from walking down a path to destruction that we have already taken many times before? the study of history is about learning from our mistakes so that we arent forced to repeat them.....but how can we do that if we dont have all the pieces to the puzzle?

i know that alot of what i have just typed is drawn from other theories already out there. but hopefully putting it all together in one post will draw more thoughts from you, my fellow ATSers, and we can start to decipher what the truth of our existence actually is. because i am deathly afraid that if we continue down the path we are on at the moment, we are doomed to repeat yet another cycle and the majority of what has been accomplished will be lost for another ten or fifteen millenia. we are sitting on the precipice of world war three, and as einstein is quoted as saying in my signature, "world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."

of course, there is always the possibility that no one will find this interesting enough to comment upon. all i can say is oh well.....at least i have done my part by putting it out there, and maybe it will at least trigger more thought as soficrow's article did for me. if just one of you reads this and it provokes more thought into the possibility of our true origins, then the afternoon of typing, editing, and retyping is not wasted, in my humble opinion.




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
this was only on the "Discussion Board Recent Posts" for a minute or two due to the high volume of posts this afternoon, so i am bumping it with this post to give you guys another chance at checking it out. if you dont think it's worthy of the bump, oh well...sue me.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Your theory is not realy far from what i think too.

Theres alot of threads of ancient civs here on ATS and somthing that i have never been able to explain is i think history have been rewrote more than once. I'm not the only one who think about this and the first name who come in mind is Gary Kasparov the russian chess star. Now id like to show some flashy link but i havent found anything yet on the internet if only i were more patient to dig deeper.

Just one more remark about all this, think about a teacher that want to explain an alternative or a different kind of thinking about all this to teenagers or young adults in class and you ll see a teacher getting scratch like theres no tomorow.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
We have the national archives hidden away in mountains. Maybe others in the past have done the same.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
Now id like to show some flashy link but i havent found anything yet on the internet if only i were more patient to dig deeper.


please dont give up....the more info the better.



Just one more remark about all this, think about a teacher that want to explain an alternative or a different kind of thinking about all this to teenagers or young adults in class and you ll see a teacher getting scratch like theres no tomorow.


i would completely agree...which is the whole point of this thread. people are ridiculed for thinking outside the ideas put forth by mainstream science.


Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
We have the national archives hidden away in mountains. Maybe others in the past have done the same.


i believe that it is a very real possibility. the question is whether or not such a repository would actually live through all of the climactic changes of this world over an extended period of time. the place to look, IMHO, is egypt. there are many threads out there about the sphynx and what may lie in its general vicinity, but the egyptians wont let anyone dig. i understand part of that, as too many amatuers could really damage true artifacts, but why not allow some of the fringe professionals give it a try? are they hiding something? or are they afraid that what might be found would take away from the accepted theory that these fantastic structures were built by the egyptians and not an earlier civilization whose history has been lost in time?

[edit on 21-11-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
ok i found somthing cool www.new-tradition.org... i havent read it all but just the 2 paragraphs are very interesting.

Wow im totaly stuned after reading this, he even mention the library of Alexandria like you did lol. Many point are shown that a master in math able to beat a cpu in chess to be contradicting themselves. I just hope he had bad sources lol cause im gonna be challenged big time.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by eagle eye]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
that is a fantastic find, eagle eye! some excerpts from your source:



There are too many inconsistencies and unexplained riddles in ancient history. Today, we are unable to build simple objects made in ancient times in the way they were originally created -this in a time when technology has produced the space shuttle and science is on the brink of cloning the human body! It is preposterous to blame all of the lost secrets of the past on the .re that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, as some have suggested.

It is unfortunate that each time a paradox of history unfolds, we are left without satisfactory answers and are persuaded to believe that we have lost the ancient knowledge. Instead of disregarding the facts that disagree with the traditional interpretation, we should accept them and put the theory under rigorous scientific scrutiny. Explanations of these paradoxes and contradictions should not be left only to historians. These are scientific and multidisciplinary problems and, in my opinion, history - as a single natural science - is unable to solve them alone.


complete agreement with part of what i have laid out here!


It is unfortunate that historians reject scientific incursion into their domain. For instance, the most reasonable explanation of Egyptian pyramid-building technology, presented by French chemist Joseph Davidovits (the creator of the geopolymer technology), was rejected by Egyptologists, who refused to provide him with samples of pyramid material.


exactly! how are we to truly learn about our past if we go about it with our hands tied behind our backs?

and an excellent summary to boot:


Knowledge of our history timeline is important, and not only for historians. If indeed the dates of antiquity are incorrect, there could be profound implications for our beliefs about the past, and also for science. Historical knowledge is important to better understand our present situation and the changes that take place around us. Important issues such as global warming and environmental changes depend on available historical data. Astronomical records could have a completely different meaning if the described events took place at times other than those provided by traditional chronology. I trust that the younger generation will have no fear of "untouchable" historical dogma and will use contemporary knowledge to challenge questionable theories. For sure, it is an exciting opportunity to reverse the subordinate role science plays to history, and to create completely new areas of scientific research.


all i can say is "wow." this is a must read for anyone interested in the possibility of innaccuracies in our current historical record.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The thing that i cant remove from my head is Roman vs Napoleon i mean why theres soo much contradictions in the roman empire and the way we see it now by our historians is probly totaly false. The roman numbers, the iron ore for their spears, the # of troops and ahem the 20 milion estimate from kasparov to populate italy.
Now id like someone to contradict all this but i think it wont happen. Im sure there is tons of contradictions in different historical event of our times.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   


all i can say is "wow." this is a must read for anyone interested in the possibility of innaccuracies in our current historical record

I think all it proves is that Kasparov is not a historian and he hasn't got his facts straight. his claim that Joseph Davidovits was not provided with samples to prove his theory is totally erroneous
he was provided with samples and they in fact completely disproved his theory
his was the one where he claimed the Pyramids were made of concrete
his idea was far from reasonable anyway as it would have required more work to grind down limestone and then pour the mixed concrete into molds and then put them ion place anyway. and it never quite explained what the egyptians were doing by placing fossils back in the wet cement as it was drying


his claim that we are unable to produce simple objects made in ancient times in the way they were originally created is also totally false
there aren't any objects that we don't know how they were made, its just that the old way of doing things were so labour intensive that in modern times we have a faster more efficient cheaper way of producing something better.
like who wants a jewel encrusted gold plated sword when you could have a kalashnikov anyway


finally his claim that history is not scientific is totally out there with Von Daniken man
how do you think it is that people who don't do it properly are called pseudoscientists if Historians arent scientists in their own rights

If you ask me it sounds like he's been reading too much Pravda



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Maybe they are not scientist(nor do i) but the point is more about the anomalies and contradictions in our historical data. Im not sure we know everything from our past because i m certain human are not a deadly beast but thats another topic.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
can you elaborate please eagle eye
im not sure I understand what you mean



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
in the link that i posted kasparov explain how the roman numbers didnt create algorithm and how they are complicated to divise or just substract on a table, then some historical fact explain the number of troop the roman empire been around the same as napoleon army wich is a big statement coming from a mathematician. Im sure the way, lets say Smithsonian, handle diferent thinking are shut down in a matter of second in our school i mean why we can compromise to end up with a thoery that is in total peace with scientists, historians and everyone with common sense.

sorry i had some tech problem here. I mean i think the intersection of science religion or history is there to prevent us from getting the truth , while we are arguing on coma. Like politics its there to fill a gap that someone doesnt want to be filled by somthing else maybe more advance in term of spirituality ( dont like the term but its somhow describe what i mean)


[edit on 21-11-2006 by eagle eye]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
oh right
well maybe someone needs to explain to him that historians don't do math
so hes asking too much



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
hmm yeah maybe but historians are not god they can do errors and kasparov is pointing out tons of them. I dont why you have to think history is concrete based i mean everyday we learn different things that one day will contradict another, does that mean historians are always right, exactly no. Something tell me you didnt read the link that i posted in the 6th reply of this tread , you should read it and maybe we will save a time here.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by eagle eye]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I did read it all and it is interesting because most of his points aren't valid
would you like me to go through them all one by one and calmly and logically tell you why or should I shut up now and let you carry on believing a mathemetician knows more about something that hes never actually studied than people who have spent their lives doing it
its like
if Simon Scharma (Historian) offered Gary Kasparov a game of chess you would bet on the historian winning
so why are you so eager to do exactly the same when the tables are reversed



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I think the coin has two sides on this one. The ancients were not simple, yes we have technology that the ancients could have never made but even today the ancient structures are nearly impossible to recreate. We are not discovering new ideas but only rediscovering.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
It is said that if the libary of Alexandria were still around, the world wouldn't be as we know it. The human race would be so far more advanced than we are now.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
ok i d prefer your tought about those theory insted of me explaining all but ill give a try, like i said earlier i only hope this guy is wrong but here it is.

1st the iron smelt that was needed for all the roman empire, mostly for spears, was technologicnly hard to achieve.
2nd the complexity of multiplication of roman numerals.
3rd the paper from the moscow university by A.T Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij yeah i know 2 mathematicians outdating all this by 1000.

theres more points i dont feel to extend cause i know thats not textbook stuff all around but it open a small door to intrepretation of these guys. I know your reasoning is true about an historian can beat a chess star but does that historian is gifted with that passion of chess?
After all what historian need to do to find out, archeology, date it with carbon 14 then discuss, elaborate somthing out of this but do you have a carbon 14 dating machine at home is that 100% proof. Somehow we rely on math and computarization for this, we all dealing with wind here cause we dont have the tool to be 100% sure by our own. I dont know i just dont trust some of our idea, i realy hope im wrong after all but i feel theres somthing fishy here in our historical data, sorry to repeat myself >



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
his was the one where he claimed the Pyramids were made of concrete
his idea was far from reasonable anyway as it would have required more work to grind down limestone and then pour the mixed concrete into molds and then put them ion place anyway. and it never quite explained what the egyptians were doing by placing fossils back in the wet cement as it was drying


then perhaps you can provide an unimpeachable explanation of how they were built? and by the by, i know a little something of the fossils which you mentioned, and you are being just a tad shady with the truth. they are seaborn fossils and shells found around the lower part of the structure (not inside the limestone blocks), which actually further proves the point that the pyramids are likely much older than mainstream science will admit, as it suggests a major flood or rise in the worlds oceans unlike anything in recorded history.



his claim that we are unable to produce simple objects made in ancient times in the way they were originally created is also totally false
there aren't any objects that we don't know how they were made, its just that the old way of doing things were so labour intensive that in modern times we have a faster more efficient cheaper way of producing something better.
like who wants a jewel encrusted gold plated sword when you could have a kalashnikov anyway


really? so again, perhaps you can explain how the pyramids were built and what devices were used to do it? youre making alot of assumptions here with no sources of your own to back them up.



finally his claim that history is not scientific is totally out there with Von Daniken man


i think what he is trying to say is that historians are working from a preconceived notion of how the events played out, and therefore are not looking at any of it from a non-biased point of view. IOW, they have already formed their opinions before they tackle the problem, which is completely contrary to the scientific method.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Some of Kasporovs concepts are quite intriguing...

Not to mention somewhat substantiated by my many observations of this thing called the human psyche.

The world is actually and currently figuratively (AND LITERALLY!!!
) totally upside down!

It is hugely difficult to discuss these types things... It is rare to find people that have the TRUE flexibility of thought, but yet are grounded enough in history, TRUE science (not the BS, the public (AND 'SCIENTISTS'!
) view as Science), reasoning and just flat out intellect to even begin to make a dent in this most fascinating of areas of inquiry.

I think you can also add another name to this list of searchers of the truth...

Immanuel Velikovsky

A linguist!


Even a passing understanding of the true brilliance of this man exposes the hopelessly setiesque nature of the total fantasy/fairy tale of what passes for 'knowledge'.

As creatures with such primitive minds... (Ouch!
)

Of course, our perception of what passes for 'history' will suffer from the pompousness of the present looking down it's nose at the past.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join