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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
so in what way does this help with the discussion
seems you got your own soapbox
mine is bigger
see its built on evidence




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Snafu, the fact is we are living on a tera forming planet and I believe that there has been 4 previous advanced civilisations that have been 99% wiped out leaving very little trace of those civilisations behind.

It is almost certain that our so called experts in this field are hiding and covering the truth of our past history. They are a closed minded lot and protect their theories and so called facts from any who wish to offer an alternative view. Anything that dose not fit they hid, lie about or denounce those who do not agree with accepted views. You only have to look at Hawass and leyner to see that, their facts of Eygpt are cast in stone and thats the end of the matter.

There are many artifacts that we either cannot replicate or would need advanced engineering to achieve same. We are told our ancesters were primitive by our standards, well were not primative but in a few thousand years the future residents of the Earth may look on us as primative.

There is evidence of previous civilisations but those who control to knowledge dont want us to know, I dont know if its because of their ego's, or they have spent all their life on their particular theory and are unwilling to accept new info or views.
As an example a few years back a German pathologist was working on a mummy and he found traces of coc aine in the hair of the mummy, well he was denounced by just about every Eygptologist on the Planet. They claimed they could not have coke in their hair because it comes from SA and they did not have the means to cross the seas. Well here in the UK they tested their mummies and guess what coc aine was found in the hair of all of the mummies. Thats just one example of them trying to stifle the truth.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   


As an example a few years back a German pathologist was working on a mummy and he found traces of coc aine in the hair of the mummy, well he was denounced by just about every Eygptologist on the Planet. They claimed they could not have coke in their hair because it comes from SA and they did not have the means to cross the seas.

this example you are presenting is totally flawed
www.hallofmaat.com...
you'll need to read all of this to understand why but basically
Coca isn't just found in coc aine plants
and neither is nicotine



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   


snafu7700 said: 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."snafu7700



I agree that much esoteric and inventive knowledge has been lost through the ages due to cataclysm. Geology certainly supports that theory. How technologically advanced these civilizations were is entirely speculative at this point, due to a loss in the historical record. I have to admit, I have little regard for the soundness of the logic used by people such as VanDaniken and (gulp) Stichen. That's not to say I dismiss everything they propose out of hand. Stone structures at the bottom of the ocean imply architectural wonders, and not technological ones.

Other archeological finds have implied the use of ancient types of batteries, etc. The ice man was found with a pouch full of mold that he probably used as an antibiotic. What I find most fascinating is the psychological differences we can glean from the historical record of the ages.

Regarding the Roman legion:


In Ancient Rome, it was said, generals sometimes promoted soldiers based on penis size. www.cbc.ca...

lol

The phallus was an all-purpose symbol of protection and fertility. A preoccupation with male strength and power that has probably contributed to the present Western tendency towards patriarchal social structures. A bias less evident in some other cultures. Although the simple superior physical strength of the male does predicate the oppression of the female in many primitive cultures. Such as the cannibals of New Guinea, where female subservience was still very much the order of the day. Show me a culture where the female was freed from the restrictions of her reproductive cycle and more frail body, that was probably a technologically advanced culture.

A good read for learning the necessary skills needed to survive is "Back to Basics - How to Learn and Enjoy Traditional Skills" It's a Reader's Digest encyclopedic account of absolutely everything you need to know. From land, choosing it to building on it, energy, raising livestock and vegetables, preserving food, skills for the homestead, even recreational suggestions. The ISBN number is 0-88850-098X.

Even if we stopped all carbon emmissions today, all of them, we still have a storehouse of warming to come that will spell cataclysm. In my opinion, it's just logical that our sea levels are going to rise and our coastlines will probably be innundated, destroying our economic trade routes.

Byrd said:




Now, I consider Chicago uninhabitable, but others disagre.


LoL -

[edit on 22-11-2006 by clearwater]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Is there a specific term for this strand of scientific theory? Like "cyclical human civilization," or something like that?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
i've had just about enough of you marduk. the whole point of this thread was to discuss the possibility, and i intentionally left out most of the accepted numbers because i was afraid that threadjacking trolls such as yourself would use them in an attempt to derail the discussion into the validity of them, as i have seen happen many a time here.

the funny thing is that a)you dont seem to read the posts before you attack, and b) it's quite obvious that you have very little knowledge yourself and, assuming that i had no idea of what i was talking about, decided you could get away with it. try again.


Originally posted by Marduk
your claim that the worlds surface was covered with Glacial Ice is untenable


first, i did not say that. i said much of the livable world, and that was covered in my response to byrd (who, for the poster who called "him" oldfashioned, is a she), which you obviously didnt read....big flipping surprise. second, you and byrd immediately latched onto the idea that i was referencing the last iceage. where exactly did i say that? because in my original post (which you obviously didnt bother to read), i clearly stated that i was talking about a possibility of "tens or hundreds of thousands" of years. it's a discussion about the possibility. are you too close-minded for that?



but you wouldn't accept that. thats an ignorant position to take when someone more knowledgable than you has tried to tell you better and you didn't listen.


like yourself? someone who has googled a few things and thinks he knows it all? no, i think not.



Kasparov is ignorant if he's attempting to denegrate modern historians by criticising a book that was written over 200 years ago


more proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. that book is still the authoratative book on the roman empire used as reference by historians all over the world.



you are again therefore ignorant for championing his ideas and the fact that he is not a historian of any kind seems lost on you


first of all, i didnt "champion" anyone's ideas....further proof that you didnt bother to read the whole thread. i am quite happy to have any information that furthers the discussion of whether or not we have been at this level of advancement many times before, which his web page did. second, you have as of yet to actually discuss the theory that i presented on the first page. all you've been doing to attempting to attack everything else that has been added since. maybe you would like to add to the discussion?



the fact that you don't know that the entire human population of earth was less than the current population of london (6 million)


actually, the more accepted number is 5 million, and i said as much in response to your post (check the first paragraph). again, at least make an attempt at reading the posts before you attack them with your ignorance.



and so are claiming that its impossible for them to exist on a planet that was no where near covered with ice suggests to me that you don't know any of the facts


i claimed nothing of the kind, and this whole quote is nothing but a flat out lie (or further proof that you dont bother to read the material before attacking it).


which is another example of your ignorance
denying Ignorance is the website motto
you're ignorant so I'm denying you
its that simple


so alternative theories and those who present them are ignorant, huh? wow, you just called the whole concept of ATS and it's founders ignorant. that takes cojones.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Snafu, the fact is we are living on a tera forming planet and I believe that there has been 4 previous advanced civilisations that have been 99% wiped out leaving very little trace of those civilisations behind.


And I believe the last civilisation were 20ft tall pink fluffy bunnies, who eventually left Earth to run a fast food catering business on the Moon .....

I have as much evidence to support my belif as you do.


It is almost certain that our so called experts in this field are hiding and covering the truth of our past history.


It is almost certain that they are not. In the same way it's almost certain that if a brewery produces a better tasting beer he won't hide the beer away from the public.


They are a closed minded lot and protect their theories and so called facts from any who wish to offer an alternative view.


Not as close minded as those who refuse to accept any evidence and instead base their beliefs on pure fantasy



Anything that dose not fit they hid, lie about or denounce those who do not agree with accepted views.


Sounds like no scientist I know


You only have to look at Hawass and leyner to see that, their facts of Eygpt are cast in stone and thats the end of the matter.


Well, that's Egyptologists for you - can't tar all academics with the same brush



There are many artifacts that we either cannot replicate or would need advanced engineering to achieve same.


Such as?

(Bearing in mind it would be 'impossible' for us to build a medieval cathedral today)


We are told our ancesters were primitive by our standards, well were not primative but in a few thousand years the future residents of the Earth may look on us as primative.


The only people who claim our ancestors were primitive are those who want us to believe they couldn't do anything for themselves, like building megalithic structure. If anything they were more advanced than us - because they were more used to thinking for themselves (unlike most Westerners today
)


There is evidence of previous civilisations but those who control to knowledge dont want us to know, I dont know if its because of their ego's, or they have spent all their life on their particular theory and are unwilling to accept new info or views.


What evidence? And if it's being surpressed who'd you know it exists?


As an example a few years back a German pathologist was working on a mummy and he found traces of coc aine in the hair of the mummy, well he was denounced by just about every Eygptologist on the Planet. They claimed they could not have coke in their hair because it comes from SA and they did not have the means to cross the seas. Well here in the UK they tested their mummies and guess what coc aine was found in the hair of all of the mummies. Thats just one example of them trying to stifle the truth.


And this evidence was so well supressed there have been numerous TV documentaries about them. No-one has tried to stifle anything here - though there are still varying theories on the origin of the coc aine.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Essan]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Is there a specific term for this strand of scientific theory? Like "cyclical human civilization," or something like that?


dont know, i just kind of made it up as i was going. i dont think there is really even an actual theory. i've taken bits and pieces from other theories i've read over the years and just thrown them all together. probably info about the maya is a good place to start, as they seem to be the primary believers in a definitive cycle.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   


your claim that the worlds surface was covered with Glacial Ice is untenable



first, i did not say that. i said much of the livable world




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.

so what you are claiming is that by saying the livable world you mean what
the land masses which currently have life on them
so what parts of the worlds surface are you now claiming were unlivable
like the oceans or maybe antartica
clearly you have no idea what youre talking about anyway which was why you started this thread based on the ramblings of a Mathemetician anyway



more proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. that book is still the authoratative book on the roman empire used as reference by historians all over the world.

so you're claiming that a 200 year old book that was proven to be factually wrong more than 150 years ago is still regarded as credible
how little you know
Measured from your obvious angle of supporting evidence it clearly would be an authority I expect because so far apart from crying and stamping your feet like a child theres not been one shred of supporting evidence from you for any of Kasparovs claimes except where you said that because hes a mathemetician he knows what hes talking about
clearly he doesnt
clearly you don't either
my claim that the population of earth at the end of the ice age was 5 million
how you can then claim that at any time i said otherwise is beyond my comprehension
I gave you a list remember
fyi the current population of london is around 6 million
maybe thats where youre getting confused
the difference between the term "end of the ice age " and "london" and the numbers 5 and 6




so alternative theories and those who present them are ignorant, huh? wow, you just called the whole concept of ATS and it's founders ignorant.

ah i see the problem
you think this is a pseudsoscience forum
it isn't the ignorance we are denying here is pseudoscience
I'll give you an example of pseudoscience so that in future you can recognise it
pseudoscience is where someone completely unqualified in a certain field claims to know more than experts do
say a chessplayer claiming to know about history
thats the kind of Ignorance thats not approved of here
you got that now ?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
You've at least revealed you know nothing about geology


never said that i did.



Which presumably means you won't believe anything a geologist tells you?


on the contrary, i would very much like to have your opinion, as i know quite well from other threads that you are genuine.


Like how comparisons of features in the pyramid stones enable us to pinpoint exact which rock strata and which quarry they came from.

Or maybe the Egyptians also terraformed their entire landscape, creating whole ranges of hills and cliffs and laid down the bedrock on which the pyramids were built etc ?


ok, and where are you going with this? are you saying that there is concrete proof as to how the pyramids were built?



(btw what sort of fossils would expect to find in limestone other than those of sea creatures, primarily shells?
)


you'll have to ask marduk.....he's the one that brought it up.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   


you'll have to ask marduk.....he's the one that brought it up.

nope
It was Kasparov who bought that up
you know the guy who you started this thread about
so its you whos backing the idea

what you got a bad memory or something as well now ?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so what you are claiming is that by saying the livable world you mean what
the land masses which currently have life on them
so what parts of the worlds surface are you now claiming were unlivable
like the oceans or maybe antartica


lol, is that your argument? good god, you really are ignorant arent you? what part of "the most livable parts of the world" did you not understand? most livable as in fertile, mildest temperatures, etc.



clearly you have no idea what youre talking about anyway which was why you started this thread based on the ramblings of a Mathemetician anyway


oh for crying out loud.....how ignorant can one person be? IT'S PRETTY DAMNED CLEAR THAT THE MATHMETICIAN POST CAME AFTER MY ORIGINAL POST TROLL, SO IT WASNT BASED ON HIS ARTICLE.

TRY READING THE WHOLE THREAD NEXT TIME TROLL.

it's pretty obvious that you've got nothing else to add, and you're about one post away from becoming the very first member of my ignore list.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



you'll have to ask marduk.....he's the one that brought it up.

nope
It was Kasparov who bought that up
you know the guy who you started this thread about
so its you whos backing the idea

what you got a bad memory or something as well now ?


you truly are ignorant. once again troll, i had no idea who this guy was until well after i wrote the first post.....WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU'D ACTUALLY READ THE THING.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Marduk



you'll have to ask marduk.....he's the one that brought it up.

nope
It was Kasparov who bought that up
you know the guy who you started this thread about
so its you whos backing the idea

what you got a bad memory or something as well now ?


you truly are ignorant. once again troll, i had no idea who this guy was until well after i wrote the first post.....WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU'D ACTUALLY READ THE THING.

so what you're claiming now then is
that when you posted this section from eagle eyes link



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.

you had no idea who it was talking about and don't know who Gary Kasparov is yet you thought it was relevant enough to post
boy you're a real top notch reseacher aren't you

i bet everyone reading this is impressed with your conduct so far
you know by definition don't you that Trolls normally start unsupportable threads to push their ideas
you started this one
and so far its unsupportable
whats that make you



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The book Conversations with God, part V also agrees with your theory that we keep destroying ourselves in an attempt to progress as a civilization.

The book suggests that even though we continue to fail we will continue to be given many chances to 'get it right'.

You should check it out, it may be more helpful to read the book in sequence.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
are you saying that there is concrete proof as to how the pyramids were built?


No, but there is concrete proof that they weren't built using concrete
The stone used to build the pyramids was taken from various quarries in the area. We can identify exactly which blocks came from which quarry. We can even date the period in which the various sediments etc that formed the rocks were laid down (many millions of years ago, of course).

(Limestone by the way is a fossiliferous rock formed on the sea bed of warm, shallow seas. It largely comprised of shells and the remains of other sea creatures)


Oh, and I apologise if I'm sometimes a bit too abrupt in my posts - it's age you know



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
good try at backpeddling troll, but this is what you actually said:


Originally posted by Marduk
It was Kasparov who bought that up
you know the guy who you started this thread about


you are attempting to say that i based the whole thread on this guy, when it's pretty clear that i didnt reference anyone in the first post, and that i didnt have a clue who this guy was at that time....when i "started the thread."

i later found his remarks interesting, and posted them for the whole thread to read.


Originally posted by c3hamby
The book Conversations with God, part V also agrees with your theory that we keep destroying ourselves in an attempt to progress as a civilization.

The book suggests that even though we continue to fail we will continue to be given many chances to 'get it right'.

You should check it out, it may be more helpful to read the book in sequence.


thanks c3hamby, i'll check that one out too.


Originally posted by Essan

No, but there is concrete proof that they weren't built using concrete


yup, and i made it pretty clear that i didnt necessarily agree with that theory, simply that marduk's reasons for attacking it were flawed....yours seem to be quite clear and thought out.




Oh, and I apologise if I'm sometimes a bit too abrupt in my posts - it's age you know


lol...no worries.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby
The book Conversations with God, part V also agrees with your theory that we keep destroying ourselves in an attempt to progress as a civilization.

The book suggests that even though we continue to fail we will continue to be given many chances to 'get it right'.

You should check it out, it may be more helpful to read the book in sequence.


That is interesting... I wonder what happens when we do get it right?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
THAT explains a lot there Marduk.

This entire theme put forth by Snafu touches on a whole of stuff... I chiming in that our ability to establish TRUE knowledge is also limited by our very human problems with methodology and cognizance.

Apparently, you are failing to grasp that this thing you think is some kind of bedrock of knowledge ('see its built on evidence')...

Is in reality for the most part... mostly sandcastles.



One can only guess that this thread is a little too detail oriented for you...



I can't say there is a single area of human science that is not TOTALLY SATURATED with pure unadulterated nonsense.

The whole point being that this thing we call history...

Suffers from exactly the same limitations... but due to the nature of the mechanics how history is recorded (AND interpreted
) suffers from a CUMMULATIVE dose!

Ah Snafu... He... she... whats the diff? The Byrd is 'old-fashioned' (hey, I'm being kind
)... more like straightjacketed by the constraints of conventional thought.


But has repeatedly demonstrated a huge widthXbreath of knowledge... I'm just putting forth an opinion... It doesn't hurt to be kind.


Hey... Its your thread.

Meanwhile...

What is it with this we are the center of the universe type thinking... that causes most mainstream scholars to dismiss anything out of hand that hasn't occurred in the last couple of years?



I am, among many things
, a book collector... I have numerous turn of the century books... Those guys didn't compose their books in Word... but let me tell you...

THOSE people are a lot more rational, a lot more grounded than we are!

Shocking opinion?

That's one of the main reasons 'modernists' try to hack guys like Immanuel V. (and our thread host Snafu
) to ribbons is it's easier to use rhetorical based mocking...

than it is to take the time and examine the true merit of the case being made...

Especially, being that many of these theories are ultimately based on huge volumes of PHYSICAL DATA that is ignored because it doesn't agree with established dogma.


[edit on 22-11-2006 by golemina]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

You mean a 1920s sparkplug from a Model T Ford? Quite easily:

www.talkorigins.org...


let's try this:




Out-of-Place Metal Objects
Humans were not even around 65 million years ago, never mind people who could work metal. So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France? In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands. In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot! A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era. And there are many, many more such anomalies.



cherry picking again, aren't we?

either, this is all fake, or somebody is dreadfully wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join