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.

 

Who lost these ancient technologies and stuff

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by theTRUTHtheWAY
Well you tell me this then...

why should his source to some website make it more credible than my source to another website that states the opposite.


That would depend on the source, mostly. I would prefer a link to an article out of Archaeology Today rather than Pravda, if you know what mean. the same thing goes for those sites which have agendas such as religion when dealing with historical facts, twisting the truth to fit their preconceptions (misconceptions).



Every1 here is about evidence and proof but what makes you think that your source is more credible than mine.


see above


We all are entitled to believe in what we want and not what others tells us to. And for people to call some1 ignorant, baically stupid, for believing in something is just Inhumane and ignorant on their part.


good point. There is, however, a difference between calling a statement ignorant and a person ignorant. I am ignorant of American politics...but this does not make me ignorant. If we are ever to 'deny ignorance', then we must be able to point out those statements which are ignorant (and why) in order to find what is not based on ignorance. It's a loaded tag...for sure...it can be taken as a personal insult very easily and that's why members should be extra careful in using the term when responding.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Masqua you make very good points in your reply. Some members need to take a look at your posts maybe they can learn something.

It just frustrates me when people must resort to ingnorant remarks in order to get their point across. The result of this will only create more hate and tension between felllow members of this site and this will reflect other threads as well.

The behaviors and actions of members of this site reflect how ATS is looked up on.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Wow, very interesting subject. Yet, I've never seen an ATS thread (been lurking for years) with such a defined topic so derailed by pure bile directed towards one another. Threadstarter was by no means babbling on and on about a theory that seems completely insane. He was pretty on the level about his INFERENCES.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand:

I gather that more than a few of these ancient objects are probably hoaxes. However, I would like to hear some actual archaelogical opinion on the pieces. It seems Byrd would be the best, but I realize he is busy.

I am now off to do my own research on each of these. Maybe when I'm done I will post any interesting things I find, but then again....

If I were to actually be convinced by a study that one of these objects is real, and is indeed indicitive of advanced ancient societies, I might not want to post in this thread for fear that a being far superior to me (lol) would rain emoticons upon me till my chest caved in.




edit:
p.s. Byrd, if you do want to digress a bit on some of these objects, I would be very appreciative. Mainly, how the tech was achievable w/out using conspiracy theory, and um maybe how it actually baffles science, not just saying that it does and providing nothing more like that web site does.




[edit on 13-12-2006 by Philadelphite]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by theTRUTHtheWAY
well why dont you provide counter evidence that such claims are wrong.

You can not prove or disprove any claims presented on this thread. We simply lack the evidence on both sides.


Can you disprove the theory that 20ft giant pink bunnies run a fast food outlet on the far side of the Moon?

No.

Does that make it a valid theory?

No.

It's difficult to disprove some 'Ooparts' simply because there is no evidence that they ever even existed - a story appear in a newspaper and is replicated time and time again in various books. But that is it. However, some cases can be discussed. For example, The Coso artifact and the South African Metal Spheres

If there are other specific 'Ooparts' that you or someone else would like to discuss, maybe we can take them one at a time? But try and find ones which have some element of authenticity.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
lets get something clear here
dgtempe posted this


Not to mention the fact that earth has been nuked before and green glass has been found?

it was a completely unsubstantiated claim and he didnt support it with any links or references at all
I have heard this claim before though
it was originally made by David Htacher Chidlress who claimed

www.nexusmagazine.com...


It is well known that atomic detonations on or above a sandy desert will melt the silicon in the sand and turn the surface of the Earth into a sheet of glass. But if sheets of ancient desert glass can be found in various parts of the world, does it mean that atomic wars were fought in the ancient past or, at the very least, that atomic testing occurred in the dim ages of history?

Childress then goes on to give his evidence of which his main claim is



Large desert areas strewn with mysterious globules of "glass"--known as tektites--are occasionally discussed in geological literature. These blobs of "hardened glass" (glass is a liquid, in fact) are thought to come from meteorite impacts in most instances, but the evidence shows that in many cases there is no impact crater.

so he thinks that because there is no impact crater it can't be a meteorite that is responsible
however
meteorites are well known to air burst because of the increasing air pressure that an inbound lump of rock forms in front of it
so no impact crater is actually evidence of a meteorite
he doesn't mention at all that nuclear weapons generally leave an impact crater as they are designed to hit targets on the ground
his claim as factual that glass is a liquid is also totally erroneous
heres the standard definition for glass
glass : hard, brittle, noncrystalline, more or less transparent substance produced by fusion, usually consisting of mutually dissolved silica and silicates that also contain soda and lime, as in the ordinary variety used for windows and bottles.

then the evidence from this website
www.saharamet.com...
that clearly states that elements found in the glass can only come from meteroites



Chemical analyses show that the glass is locally enriched in meteoritic elements,


so you can choose if you like whether you believe the highly speculative and deliberately misleading claim of Hatcher Childress or the irrefutable evidence of science that desert glass is formed by meteroites and not nuclear weapons

now i will make this quite clear
if you want to believe it was nuclear weapons you are ignorant of the facts
you would also be ignorant of the fact that David Hatcher Childress is not a scientist and is in fact a trained economist
which means of course that he will happily provide the public with what he knows they will buy
and the public he is selling to is clearly ignorant of the facts
lets face it the man thinks that glass is a liquid so his understanding of chemical composition leaves a lot to be desired imo


this is why I called dgtempe ignorant
because he did buy it
and when asked for references to prove his assertion he couldn't/wouldn't provide any
so you people claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in this case when in fact I am the only one in this entire thread to provide links to both the original claim and the proof that it is erroneous are also ignorant of these facts
or are they not allowed because they were found using google
if that is the case then there has been no claim made at all and therefore no need for me to bother wasting my time refuting it for those who are ignorant of its existence
is there ?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I enjoy scientific studies and engaging in open-minded discussions. But sadly, most interesting topics generally end even before it begins when some overbearing members start insulting others, not because these boors are intellectuals, but because their minds were limited to what they had been taught and taught to accept.

New perspective for the improvements in scientific fields are often derailed by those who cannot accept that all that they held dear and cherished in the past which may be rendered asundered as we gain new understanding of our world and environment.

Far too often, bright ideas or concepts are scoffed at even before it had a chance to be developed. 'Home computers are utter nonsense' - a belief long held by scientists and engineers of the 60s. 'UFO does not exist' - even as fleets of unidentified flying objects gravitate in the mexican skies using technology no country admits to having. 'Mars has no water' - a common refrain often heard, believers scoffed at, until recently.

Such attitude does more harm to science - the inflexibility of the mind to accept new concepts, rationalise it, research on it, form a hypothesis/opinion and await confirmation. Ridicule stops the germination for increase knowledge, for each day, we learn something new, both in science and life.

911 and the loss of lives could have been avoided had security agencies been more open to threat assesments, rather than to ridicule unlimited minds to possibilities as 'half baked flights of fancy theories' or 'watched too much x-files'. This is only a pyschological example of an insulting closeminded attitude which harms more than it does good.

I generally just read interesting posts here and prefer to do my own research and form my own conclusions and await confirmation. But the ridicule thrown by a few overbearing members, who had not done any research and yet show their high and mighty deluded 'intellect' is enough to piss me off to post here and then look at other open-minded science sites instead.

Take the example of sheet of glass in the desert sands. The words of a single geologist whose career is only in prospecting is enough evidence to disprove the opinion of someone else???!!! Geez..a sad day for science and knowledge. And the gall of him to call others ignorant.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   


Take the example of sheet of glass in the desert sands. The words of a single geologist whose career is only in prospecting is enough evidence to disprove the opinion of someone else???!!! Geez..a sad day for science and knowledge. And the gall of him to call others ignorant.

not the words of a single geologist
the words of ALL geologists
whereas you have the word of a single economist turned author
what a load of crap your critical analysis is
heres how that term is defined
"an appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation"
what facts have you analysed - none
what have you evaluated - your own ignorance
you are such a poor loser that you can't put a single sentence together that even approaches the facts

you have done no research on this yourself
had you even bothered to look it up on wikipedia
you would have found this

en.wikipedia.org...


The origin of the glass is a controversial issue for the scientific community. Meteoric origins were long suspected, but then research linked the glass to evidence of impact mechanics (vaporized quartz and meteoric metals) and to an impact crater. The topic is currently still evolving, and some geologists associate the glass not with impact melt ejecta, but with radiative melting from meteoric large aerial bursts, i.e., the glass would be analogous to trinitite created from sand exposed to the thermal radiation of a fireball.

this is the factual explanation
now go read what it says under "Pseudoscientific speculation"
heres the common definition for that word
any of various methodologies, theories, or systems having no scientific basis
see that term "no scientific basis"
thats you seekerofrubbish
thats a perfect definition of your acclaimed critical analysis which so far has considered no criticism and certainly has featured no analysis whatsoever

now would you like me to post as many links to credible scientific sites that tell you the same thing as I can or have you got the message yet


nice post by the way
youre agenda is now clearly showing
is there any chance of you posting a credible link sometime soon or are you just going to carry on shooting off your mouth to the entertainment of those of us who know better than you



[edit on 14-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Marduk
lets face it the man thinks that glass is a liquid so his understanding of chemical composition leaves a lot to be desired imo

this is why I called dgtempe ignorant
because he did buy it

If I remember right all matter exist in three forms: solid, liquid and gas depending on temperature, pressure. I'm not a physicist but I do remember a few things I learned in school.

I also remember once on an excursion we visited an old castle from the 15th-16th century with the the original glaspanes still in and it was evident that you could not only fell but see how they were twice as thick at the bottom than that they were at the top.

I guess you're American and thus not able to make such an observation. But I understand you put great pride in links, so go find some on physics of matter before you start ridiculing anybody.

Just a little puzzle for bedtime: metals are solids, right? What about mercury, it is a metal. Or water is liquid. What about ice then? In some languages where they only know ice from drinks, they actually call it "hard water", litterally translated.

You might deny ignorance, but I would say you certainly seem to gloat over those less knowledgeable or more open to alternatives than you are. It almost seems like you get your kick from it. That's called arrogance and it's much worse, much harder to cure than ignorance.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   


You might deny ignorance, but I would say you certainly seem to gloat over those less knowledgeable or more open to alternatives than you are.

so you're claiming that glass is a liquid then
really
and you're calling me arrogant
haha

just for you
Liquid : composed of molecules that move freely among themselves but do not tend to separate like those of gases; neither gaseous nor solid.

solid : having three dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), as a geometrical body or figure.

solidified : to make solid; make into a hard or compact mass; change from a liquid or gaseous to a solid form.

I really thought I had heard everything but now you're claiming that an already disproven theory is correct because Glass is a liquid
drunk any lately have you ?



That's called arrogance and it's much worse, much harder to cure than ignorance.

calling someone arrogant in an attempt to discredit them is arrogant in itself as well as being ignorant


[edit on 14-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
lets get something clear here


this is why I called dgtempe ignorant
because he did buy it
and when asked for references to prove his assertion he couldn't/wouldn't provide any
so you people claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about in this case when in fact I am the only one in this entire thread to provide links to both the original claim and the proof that it is erroneous are also ignorant of these facts
or are they not allowed because they were found using google
if that is the case then there has been no claim made at all and therefore no need for me to bother wasting my time refuting it for those who are ignorant of its existence
is there ?



Marduk, This is the best post I have ever seen you do. You actually sounded sincere in this one, not like the hot headed poster of all your other post. We have butted heads before and we will again but for just this one post I will give you a
.

PS stop calling people ignorant. Just say that it iis an ignorant statement.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
dwb.unl.edu... erksen/florin.html

Hopefully this is a source that marduk will trust.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by ultralo1]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   


PS stop calling people ignorant. Just say that it is an ignorant statement.

thats great advice
I will try that in future
Thanks





Glass =amorphous solid

so David Hatcher Childress was wrong
blimey i would never have guessed

from your link
Khunmoon pay attention



I also remember once on an excursion we visited an old castle from the 15th-16th century with the the original glaspanes still in and it was evident that you could not only fell but see how they were twice as thick at the bottom than that they were at the top.

oooh

btw



I guess you're American and thus not able to make such an observation.

like your supposed fact this assumption of yours is also wrong
I am not an american
I have updated my location on my user profile so you can drop the insulting assumptions now ok



[edit on 14-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
wow i hope someone actually starts discussing the objects.

Berating each other is so fun

"your ignorant"

"your arrogant"

"your ignorant and arrogant"


yawn.

wake me up when someone says something thoughtful about ancient technologically advanced objects, i dont give a rats about glass that has already been covered by the discovery channel (



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


I guess you're American and thus not able to make such an observation.

like your supposed fact this assumption of yours is also wrong
I am not an american
I have updated my location on my user profile so you can drop the insulting assumptions now ok



So, being called "American" is an "insulting assumption" Marduk?

Let's see, where does Graham Hancock come from again?


Ultralo:

Thanks for that link. It's certainly refreshing to find somebody interested in actually seeking out the facts of a given situation.

I'd heard that urban myth about glass being a liquid before, but it had never made sense to me. Now it's completely clear, thanks again.

Philadelphite:

The links I provided to earlier threads on this subject a page or two back contain many discussions of many of these Ooparts. Also in those threads are links to scientific discussions of these sorts of things, as well as (of course) psuedoscientific discussions of same.

If you are really interested, you might try the vast Pseudoscience link library at the Antiquity of Man website.

Also, there's much to be found at Doug's Archaeology Site, which is operated by Doug Weller, an ATS member and well known proponent of common sense on the internet concerning these sorts of topics. Try a PM to him. No question he can help you (or anyone else seeking the truth.)

There's more info at Jason Colavito's website Ancient Secrets.

Even more at K.J. Matthew's Out of Place Artifacts webpage

Lastly, you could browse The Skeptic's Dictionary which has short entries on pretty much everything that has come up lately around here, including the fraud Cayce.

My feeling is, one good link deserves several others.

Of course, people here that have already made up their minds concerning these so-called "out of place" artifacts will no doubt skip right over this post, pretending that no "proof!" has been given, or that, since these are links, why, they must have been gathered through that Satanic tool Google and are thus worthless.

That's fine with me. As long as I can still voice my opinions here and give the reasons I hold those opinions, then the hardline, crystal gazing, tree hugging, self-loathing, alien worshipping, naive goofballs don't bother me a bit with their insulting and ignorant statements about myself and others here.

BTW,

BYRD is a GIRL.


Harte



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   


So, being called "American" is an "insulting assumption" Marduk?

well I wasn't sure so I googled it (satanically) and this is what I found
www.cnn.com...
Johnny Depp can't be wrong can he
lets ask Byrd
I'm sure she'd side with Johnny for some inexplicable female reason

and then theres this
www.netcartoon.net...
must be true if there is an award for it
makes sense to me

and this
www.darwinawards.com...
started by an american physicist in which the most frequent winners are from a certain nationality (can you guess which one)

and then of course there is this
www.jx3.net...
i rest my case


this is of course without mentioning the fact that this comment was sponsored in the first place by another poster saying that I must be an american not to know something which to him seemed so obvious
so if you want to place blame for this post on someone then your target is clear


I apologise to the mods for posting this off topic diatribe so will add this final very historically related piece to even the score
www.stephaniemiller.com...


[edit on 14-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

and then theres this
www.netcartoon.net...
must be true if there is an award for it
makes sense to me


I read that with John Cleeses' voice in my head and it was funny.


I guess i am just a dumb American.

~~~~~~~~~
fixed quote box



[edit on 14/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

I apologise to the mods for posting this off topic diatribe so will add this final very historically related piece to even the score
www.stephaniemiller.com...




My Dumb American is acting up again and I missed that one. Truly a work of arte.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
For the record:

I never used the term "American" in any degrading way. I took a statistical chance in my assumption and I was wrong.


Marduk, please forgive me, as you so obivious take the term insulting. Not me. I used it to hint that no buildings older than a few hundred years can be found on the American continent.

But I'm grateful for the goldnuggets it made you dig up. Thank you.


As for arrogant, I made a general consideration and the allusion to you is 'seem'. An observation, not a judgement. It's you who take it personal.

For the interesting question about the state of glass I'm quit happy with the definition "amorphous", meaning "without form, shapeless, deformed". The textbooks I was taught by called it liquid.


Everything changes, definitions, reality etc., nothing static, least of all glass.

Thanks to ultralo 1 for the link.


And now - Please go back to the topic.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   


Marduk, please forgive me, as you so obivious take the term insulting. Not me. I used it to hint that no buildings older than a few hundred years can be found on the American continent.

no apologies necessary Khunmoon
we English have a sense of humour you know



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I think one of the reason that these discoveries have never been revealed to the masses is that often they are proven to be incorrect assumptions or outright deception. Some people have an agenda and they are not above lying to sway others to their cause.

That being said, it's interesting reading and it makes you think. I read the page that the OP pointed too long ago and was fascinated by the discoveries. However, a little research on the one that I found most interesting (The Coso Artifact) proved it to be nothing more than a 1920s era spark plug encased in hardened sediment.

This page The Coso Artifact analyzes the find in detail.

Would be great if any of these can be proven. It's odd, though, that most of the mind-shattering archaeology finds tend to get "lost" before they can be throughly examined. Some will say that TPTB are hiding them from the public. Others will say that it was all a joke or outright lie spread by word of mouth. You make the call.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by BlueTriangle]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join