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.

 

man's existence on earth

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
If the earth has been around for approx. 5 billion years and there are 1000 million years in a billion. Modern man has only been here about 30,000 years?
It is known that man has a tendency to forget and also destroy previous cultures to replace their own.
What is to say that man has been on this earth far longer than what the experts say. What happend in the 4th billion years? Was man here then? What about the beginning of the 5th billion years? The dinos were here for 230 million years and died out 65 million years ago. What was before them?? Was man plunged into darkness by something that they did? Did the dinos take over because of it? Atlantis? Moo? Were these the old civilations that were here a billion years ago? There are clues around the world to queery this. Mayan temples that predict the future, astonomy, time. Where did they get the knowledge? Easter Island? Who carved the heads and what do they mean? The Sphinx who was the first people to carve it?
So many years that aren't accounted for! What do you think???




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
i think that humanity hasn't been around for more than a few million years, if you include pre-homo sapien homonids

the majority of earth's history didn't have humans
why?
they hadn't evolved yet

sure, humanity gets rid of some cultures
but nothing that extreme

there is no evidence pointing to humanity existing for anything longer than mainstream archaeolgy and anthropology claims



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   


Did the dinos take over because of it? Atlantis? Moo?

Ah yes the fabled lost continent of Moo inhabited entirely by a lost race of bipedal Bovines




posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlander7
So many years that aren't accounted for! What do you think???

I think you need to look up on commonly acknowledged history. We know quite alot more than just "big evil reptiles long ago and we came later".



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka
I think you need to look up on commonly acknowledged history. We know quite alot more than just "big evil reptiles long ago and we came later".


the key phrase there being "commonly acknowledged history." we think we know everything there is to know about our past....isnt that just a little conceited? they thought the same thing during the renaissance.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by snafu7700]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
good point
bad example
renaissance is derived from
Fr. renaissance des lettres, which means a renewal of learning
the people claiming that they knew nothing and at that point started to learn again and maing that their aim in life

now the greeks however they did think they knew everything
and really they knew nothing
when you conisder that the one piece of technology of theirs that wows us today was a clockwork hand cranked astrolabe
brings it into perspective doesnt it





posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
thankyou for highlighting my point for me. that era was labeled "renaissance" after the fact, was it not? and for a very good reason. the people at the time thought they were more advanced and more knowledgeable than at any other time in history, but we know now that they were only relearning knowledge lost during the middle ages.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
snafu, we do not claim to know everything about history
hell, we claim to only know generalities about certain aspects of it



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
we do know more now about history and prehistory than any society thats ever gone before
you can find more about the history of mankind on earth in ten minutes on the internet than was available to the whole of mankind 50 years ago
thats if you use the right sites of course



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
we do know more now about history and prehistory than any society thats ever gone before
you can find more about the history of mankind on earth in ten minutes on the internet than was available to the whole of mankind 50 years ago
thats if you use the right sites of course



you mean i cant use world nut daily or pravda? darn, those are my best sources!



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
There's too many "What?" questions to really comprehend a decent answer.

It's possible we have been here longer, as all those years ago, how would you know if someone/other civilisations existed?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   


how would you know if someone/other civilisations existed?

because mankind has only been capable of forming civilisations for the last 11,500 years
and any civilisation that existed in that timeframe would leave lots of traces both physically and genetically
and there aren't any



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
because mankind has only been capable of forming civilisations for the last 11,500 years
and any civilisation that existed in that timeframe would leave lots of traces both physically and genetically
and there aren't any


there arent any accepted by mainstream science you mean. i think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this marduk, because thread after thread we seem to be running around in the same circles making the same arguments and i dont think either of us is going to budge any time soon.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
well if you want to examine it logically
human existence time frame
100,000 years ago homo sapiens sapiens evolves from homo sapiens archaic
72,000 years ago the ice age begins and the human race declines in number as each day becomes a battle for survival
11,500 years ago the ice age ends and the number of humans on earth is less than 5 million people mostly located in central eurasia

so really we've only been in a situation where gathering together in a civilisation would increase our chances of survival since the ice age ended
because before then there was not enough food to feed large populations

human genetics has now advanced enough to the point where we are able to trace mtdna of everyone currently alive on earth back to the end of the ice age
there are no breaks in the chain
a lost civilisation would show up genetically as a concentration of the dna groups that inhabited it
there are no concentrations unnacounted for
there are also no lost civilisations recorded anywhere in the history of the last 10,000 years

so if there was a civilisation not only would no survivors have been left from its destruction but none of them ever left it and travelled anywhere else and they were not in contact with any other civilisation
which is impossible
because one thing that makes a civilisation thrive is trade



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
two words: missing link.

all of your explanation is supported by theory. and i would argue that there are hints of well traveled ancients....similar building design in the form of pyramids in all parts of the globe, similar stories of ancient gods, etc etc. the reason we havent explored the possibility further is because mainstream science refuses to do so...and has refused to even consider the possibility since the scholars began taking over from the rich aristocratic archeological hobbyists two hundred years ago. it's very easy to make all the evidence conform to your theory when no one in the profession is allowed to think outside the box for fear of ridicule and loss of grants.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
au contraire
satellite imaging is being used by archaeologists to find buried settlements
and mtdna studies have been completed by mainstream science
the only people blathering about lost civilisations are those who generally have had no formal training in any field which would enable them to speak with any authority
people like
Graham Hancock - journalist
David Hatcher Childress - Journalist
Zechariah Sitchin - journalist and economist
Robert Bauval - tour guide
Edgar Cayce - book shop employee
Madame Blavatsky - circus performer (allegedly)

funnily enough its these same people who are generating the idea that mainstream science is covering up the truth
because without that belief system their work would be seen for what it really is
utter crap


Its like you going to the doctor and him telling you that you the scans you had at the hospital last week show you have a brain tumour
and you deny this is true because the man in the market place who sells fruit from a barrow says that brain tumours arent real.
who is most likely to be telling you the truth
the mainstream science eductaed doctor
or a man interested in making you happy because you buy more fruit when youre smiling




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



how would you know if someone/other civilisations existed?

because mankind has only been capable of forming civilisations for the last 11,500 years
and any civilisation that existed in that timeframe would leave lots of traces both physically and genetically
and there aren't any


Whoops, worded wrong there. When I meant civilisations, I meant as in small groups of people, my bad.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
au contraire
satellite imaging is being used by archaeologists to find buried settlements
and mtdna studies have been completed by mainstream science


i notice you ignore the fact that all of the theories in your previous post have that small little missing link tugging at them. as for satellite imagery, it can only go so far. yes, we have become quite smart as a species, but i would still maintain that it is very pompous to believe that we have it all figured out.



the only people blathering about lost civilisations are those who generally have had no formal training in any field which would enable them to speak with any authority


a. the people who started the field of archeology in the first place had exactly as much training as those you listed above. so why are we still working from their theories (because you know as well as i do that we havent wavered from those theories in two hundred years, except when forced to, such as the case of troy or thor heyerdahl). why do we refuse to even examine the possibility that we might be wrong?

b. you know as well as i do that amatuers are the only people who can examine the evidence with an open minded view. if archeologists want to continue to receive grants and enjoy acceptance in the community, they had damn well not stray from the mainstream party line. and less face it, some of the "amateurs" you have listed below have become quite knowledgeable over the years. 8 years in the field is just as good is some instances as 8 years in college (better sometimes). my career field is a perfect example of that. college graduates have a much larger wash-out rate in the large radar centers than former military controllers.



funnily enough its these same people who are generating the idea that mainstream science is covering up the truth
because without that belief system their work would be seen for what it really is
utter crap


i never said that they are intentionally covering anything up. but i do believe that they refuse to look beyond accepted theory and really examine the possibility that mainstream science may not have all of the answers.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   


i notice you ignore the fact that all of the theories in your previous post have that small little missing link tugging at them

my bad
ourworld.compuserve.com...
www.satellitediscoveries.com...
www.deltasinai.com...
www.intute.ac.uk...
www3.nationalgeographic.com...


the people who started the field of archeology in the first place had exactly as much training as those you listed above.

none of those people i listed has ever done any archaeology whatsoever
they have all written books based on their imaginations and the work of previous pseudohistorians
they have all gotten rich from selling books with impossible dreams to a general public who don't know enough about the subject to be able to tell the truth from the lies


we havent wavered from those theories in two hundred years

Archaeology is a science
it has progressed a great deal in the last 200 years
it now utilises every piece of modern technology available


troy or thor heyerdahl

Schlieman discovered Troy from using known archaeological practices. He then proceeded to butcher the site and make claims about it based not on solid archaeological practice but based on his imagination that the work of Homer was true word for word. He was very disappointed that he didn't find a huge wooden horse in the rubble
Heyerdhal proved that it was possible to almost make a long ocean journey in a reed boat using modern maps and navigation techniques
he at no time proved that anyone in the ancient world did it
nor that they were motivated to


you know as well as i do that amatuers are the only people who can examine the evidence with an open minded view

Amateurs do not have an open minded view
often they have decided on a theory without looking at the evidence
they then procced to excavate without noting stratiography and without ensuring discovered artifacts remain uncontaminated
as such even if some amateur found Excalibur sticking out of a block of granite the discovery would be next to worthless


if archeologists want to continue to receive grants and enjoy acceptance in the community, they had damn well not stray from the mainstream party line.

How many archaeologists have you actually spoken to Snafu
this statement seems to be based on what pseudohistorians have written in their books
that real archaeologists have to hide any discoveries that they make
it simply isnt true
any archaeologist who uncovered the mother ship from alpha centauri would be phing the press 20 seconds later
Archaeologists are dedicated professionals who need to do at least three years studying at university to be able to call themselves that and there is not one of them who bothered to get into the field in the first place because they wanted to cover up the truth
once again I'd ask you how many archaeologists have you spoken to on this
and if you think this is the case how many links can you provide that prove any archaeologist has covered up the truth





some of the "amateurs" you have listed below have become quite knowledgeable over the years. 8 years in the field is just as good is some instances as 8 years in college

once again none of those people listed are amateur archaeologists
they are all authors writing books based not on evidence but on what they think people will want to read
any close examination of any book written by these authors immediately shows this to be true
Graham Hancock claimed that flash frozen mammoths are proof of earth crust displacement when in fact no flash frozen mammoths have ever been found and earth crust displacement was disproved back in the 50s
David Hatcher Childress claimed that radioactive skeletons were found in the nuked ruins of harappa at the end of the 19th century
a full 30 years before the invention of the geiger counter
Zechariah Sitchin claims that the sumerians were in contact with advanced beings from a rogue planet. he claims that they taught the sumerians about the universe when in fact a quick glance at sumerian astronomical tablets reveals that they only knew of the existence of five planets
Robert Bauval claims that the giza pyramids were planned to mimic the constellation of orion when in fact the egyptians never wrote anything about orion at that stage in history and when the pyramids do not resemble the orion constellation unless you reverse them and squish them together a bit
Edgar Cayce claimed that stonehenge was built by jews in 1500bce and that Atlantis would rise from the depths in the late 1960s
Madame Blavatsky claimed that she was taught all she knew by ascended masters who lived in a place called shangri la somewhere in tibet when records show she never visited the country and when modern satellite imagery have shows that there are no lost cities hidden anywhere in the area she claimed to have visited

compare this to the work of people who spend most of their days on their hands and knees carefully brushing away layers of dust to find a piece of bone or an artifact whihc might allow our knowledge to grow by just a tiny piece to enable us to understand more about our past
you really are being very insulting to a lot of dedicated professional snafu



i never said that they are intentionally covering anything up. but i do believe that they refuse to look beyond accepted theory and really examine the possibility that mainstream science may not have all of the answers.

thats exactly what you are saying
you are transferring your suspicions onto a group of professional who you havent spoken to and who you haven't got a clue about
shall I say now that it is my opinion that you are covering up the truth about multiple radar contacts that happen everyday
because i have said that and you cannot prove it isnt true I will then accuse you of lying to cover up the truth
you know all about the aliens landing on our planet every day yet you havent approached the press because if you did your funding would be cut (i.e. you'd get fired)
get my point yet ?
and are you going to provide some links to back your claims at some point or are we just supposed to take all this stuff on faith



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
my bad
ourworld.compuserve.com...
www.satellitediscoveries.com...
www.deltasinai.com...
www.intute.ac.uk...
www3.nationalgeographic.com...


lol....maybe i'm not making myself clear enough. i thought the term "missing link" would clue you in, but i guess not. your original posts alluded to the progression of man anthropologically, which would imply darwinism.....a theory that has one very big missing link.




none of those people i listed has ever done any archaeology whatsoever
they have all written books based on their imaginations and the work of previous pseudohistorians


wrong. graham hancock in particular has been involved in many archeological digs, dives and other ventures around the world. you of all people should know better than to assume anything. have you actually read any of his books?



they have all gotten rich from selling books with impossible dreams to a general public who don't know enough about the subject to be able to tell the truth from the lies


i wont deny theyve gotten rich off of their works, but i dont believe that it was without truly believing in the research they are doing.



Archaeology is a science
it has progressed a great deal in the last 200 years
it now utilises every piece of modern technology available


true, but i still believe we have, as a culture, decided that we know everything about our past and are just going through the motions waiting for the proof of our theories to be found.



Schlieman discovered Troy from using known archaeological practices. He then proceeded to butcher the site and make claims about it based not on solid archaeological practice but based on his imagination that the work of Homer was true word for word. He was very disappointed that he didn't find a huge wooden horse in the rubble


i dont know very much on the subject of troy beyond what i've seen on the history and discovery channels, so i'll defer to your knowledge on that one.



Heyerdhal proved that it was possible to almost make a long ocean journey in a reed boat using modern maps and navigation techniques
he at no time proved that anyone in the ancient world did it
nor that they were motivated to


oversimplified and misleading. have you actually read his book? from this post i am guessing the answer is no. they had very little control over the vessel, and proved quite well his theory was correct. modern dna research is further proving his thesis to be correct.



Amateurs do not have an open minded view
often they have decided on a theory without looking at the evidence


that much i agree with, which is my biggest problem with hancock. his way of doing things is completely contrary to the scientific method. but i would counter that modern archeology is doing the exact same thing. they have a preconceived notion of how history went, and are going about their work very closed mindedly because of that notion.



they then procced to excavate without noting stratiography and without ensuring discovered artifacts remain uncontaminated
as such even if some amateur found Excalibur sticking out of a block of granite the discovery would be next to worthless


and do you know why? because when they request the assistance and/or permission of mainstream archeologists they are denied the help and/or permission. giza is a very good example of this....and while i understand that a certain amount of care is necessary in order to preserve those great sites, mainstream archeologists and egyptologists have a tendency to look at the so called amatuers down their collective noses and deny them access simply because of their amatuer status. it seems to me that a truly openminded community would want to work with the amatuers to ensure they do things properly and safely for the integrity of the site in question.



How many archaeologists have you actually spoken to Snafu


quite a few actually. and every time i ask about the possibility of ancient unknown civilizations, instead of discussing the issue with me they have a tendency to make themselves scarce. i have only been truly impressed with one.




that real archaeologists have to hide any discoveries that they make
it simply isnt true
any archaeologist who uncovered the mother ship from alpha centauri would be phing the press 20 seconds later
Archaeologists are dedicated professionals who need to do at least three years studying at university to be able to call themselves that and there is not one of them who bothered to get into the field in the first place because they wanted to cover up the truth
once again I'd ask you how many archaeologists have you spoken to on this
and if you think this is the case how many links can you provide that prove any archaeologist has covered up the truth


you seem to have a habit of attempting to twist the words in my post. once again i will say that i dont believe anyone is covering anything up....simply that they refuse to examine the possibility that their theories might possibly be incorrect.

as for the links, do you really want to play that "your links vs my links" game again? because i already know your answers and you already know mine.

once again, i think the best solution is for us to agree to disagree on this particular subject, because i dont believe either of us is going to budge from our position anytime soon.





[edit on 5-1-2007 by snafu7700]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join