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.

 

Pyramids in Antarctica???

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
yup
those besteria scientists may have fooled the world, clever little fellas

so we're looking for a limestone built structure with four equal triangular sides building to an apex and a square base which is several microns tall
I think explorers should be very careful
they might inadvertently tread on one and destroy the find of the decade




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
mmm,
i should have used commas in order to avoid misunderstanding.
It's ''bacteria, that scientists have found...''
Sorry for that...
...thanks for highlighting my english mistakes!



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


posted by the borg
My main point here was, and still is, that there's no way for us to know if an advanced civilization ever lived there alongside, or even before the dinosaurs.

I see
so what you're saying is that this

is not a kids cartoon as we have been led to believe
but is in fact a documentary
well hey you're entitled to your opinion of course
lololololol



I never said that, and you're putting words into my mouth. Please remain on-topic, and stop trying to derail the thread with insults.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

[posted by the Borg
I never said that, and you're putting words into my mouth. Please remain on-topic, and stop trying to derail the thread with insults.

you said


posted by the Borg
My main point here was, and still is, that there's no way for us to know if an advanced civilization ever lived there alongside, or even before the dinosaurs.

you claimed that was your point buddy
its all there in grey and white
there is a mountain of evidence that makes your first statement complete rubbish which you have decided to ignore
i think this is a case of faith moving mountains
in this case it has moved the mountain of evidence from your sight
well done
truly you are now posting in complete ignorance
trying to deny it after the fact will not make it true



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Y'know, sometimes a mountain is just a doggone mountain.

Pyramids are made out of stones and bricks. That's a mountain. We'd all have noticed if it was made out of granite blocks.

Oh... and Indiana Jones knew the difference between "rocks and landscape" and "things made by humans."

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Indellkoffer]
Now now, be nice. . . .



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you claimed that was your point buddy
its all there in grey and white


And explain to me how any part of what I've said here has stated that I am certain that an ancient civilization has existed prior to our own. I've never said that, nor will I ever. The definitions for words are very clear here. I said, and I also quote:



My main point here was, and still is, that there's no way for us to know if an advanced civilization ever lived there alongside, or even before the dinosaurs.


(emphasis added to illustrate importance)

Nowhere in that statement did I state anything as being definite. Your claims to the contrary are a detriment to my point of view, and have succeeded in derailing this thread. Nearly continuous veiled insults have all been attempts to drive people (me in this case) away from a thread that you simply cannot agree with. Well, I can tell you that I'm not going to budge one inch, since my point remains just as valid as anyone's.



there is a mountain of evidence that makes your first statement complete rubbish which you have decided to ignore


Give me one, just ONE piece of evidence that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that what you say is accurate. At that point, I'll give it consideration. Remember, I'm the one with an open mind here. I am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong, and will openly make that statement to all here, should I be proven so. However, since I've made no declarative statements as to my views on this either way, the burden of proof is on you, my friend. Good luck.



i think this is a case of faith moving mountains
in this case it has moved the mountain of evidence from your sight
well done
truly you are now posting in complete ignorance
trying to deny it after the fact will not make it true


And you are free to think as you so believe. Just remember these few exchanges when they find evidence of an ancient civilization on the continent. I can assure you that you'll be amazed.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
does some1 have pics, i dont have GE because i dont have broadband yet.

we should just melt the ice, its going to happen anyway, just tell the people on the coasts to move up, or build a giant sea wall.we could either detonate nukes above the ice, or build a giant space mirror to forums the sun on the ice.

but i remember on one of the conspiracy shows on the history channel, stated that some guy flew over the south pole, in a personel aircraft and saw, grasslands, with what he described as giant animals(most likely mega fauna), and people.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17but i remember on one of the conspiracy shows on the history channel, stated that some guy flew over the south pole, in a personel aircraft and saw, grasslands, with what he described as giant animals(most likely mega fauna), and people.


I'd like to see that program, but I have my doubts that the History Channel stated that a person flew over the south pole and saw grasslands, large animals and people. I could believe that they said, "some guy claims he flew over the south pole and saw etc, etc," but they always seem to be so picky when it comes to stating things. Could be they don't want anyone to call such a statement BS without being able to back it up (which any respectable researcher would do in order to not look like a complete idiot).

+ $0.02



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

posted by the borg
Give me one, just ONE piece of evidence that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that what you say is accurate. At that point, I'll give it consideration. Remember, I'm the one with an open mind here


en.wikipedia.org...


This encircling system blocked heat transport, causing the Antarctic to cool. It has been covered with ice since approximately the beginning of the Pliocene, about 5 million years ago.


en.wikipedia.org...


H. sapiens ("sapiens" means wise or intelligent) has lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present


now get your calculator and check my math
5,000,000 (five million years of minimum ice cover)
--250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand years our species has been on earth)
4,750,000 (years that Antartica was covered in ice before we even evolved

now I'm sure you'll find some way to claim this isn't relevant Borg
but hey go ahead
after this if you do you won't have any credibility will you
not that you actually have any in this area anyway



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
en.wikipedia.org...


This encircling system blocked heat transport, causing the Antarctic to cool. It has been covered with ice since approximately the beginning of the Pliocene, about 5 million years ago.


I commend you on that effort there. I must also point out that I'm not talking about our current homo sapian evolution. I was speculating and hypothesizing about the possibility, however remote it may be, that there could have, at one point, been an ancient civilization that preceded our own on this planet. Nothing you've said or shown me thusfar proves or disproves that. All I was trying to do was to throw a new idea out there. However, your vehemence to be contrary about it has turned this into an argument that's neither relevant to the thread, nor productive.

However, that being said, at the same website that you just mentioned above, I also found this:


About 200 million years ago Antarctica was joined to South America, Africa, India, Australia, and New Zealand in a single large continent called Gondwana. There was no ice sheet, the climate was warm, and trees and large animals flourished. Today only geological formations, coal beds, and fossils remain as clues to Antarctica's temperate past.


Now, this here is exactly what I was talking about. Only 5 million very short years ago, life flourished on the Antarctic continent. How are we to know whether any intelligent life existed there or not? By the lack of any discovery? That's hardly good science, as things do disappear over time, and we all know that there's things that have yet to be discovered there. Also, what's with the coal beds? Do these form naturally?

For example, as of today, several potentially new species were discovered underneath a recently broken ice sheet. Odd that fauna were found there as well as these creatures. Oh, here's the news report by the way: Antarctic Ice Melt. I hope this helps to shed some light on my views on this. All I ever intended with my posts was to try and encourage people to keep an open mind, rather than just accept everything they're told as gospel, when in fact it could be wrong, and we've just not found the evidence to prove it wrong yet.



en.wikipedia.org...


H. sapiens ("sapiens" means wise or intelligent) has lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present


now get your calculator and check my math
5,000,000 (five million years of minimum ice cover)
--250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand years our species has been on earth)
4,750,000 (years that Antartica was covered in ice before we even evolved

now I'm sure you'll find some way to claim this isn't relevant Borg
but hey go ahead
after this if you do you won't have any credibility will you
not that you actually have any in this area anyway


Again, I'm not going to dispute any of those claims, except one. According to National Geographic, the oldest human footprints ever found are in the area of 325,000 to 385,000 years old. These Ancient Footprints may not be from a homo sapian, but that doesn't negate the fact that they were from an upright walking humanoid. Intelligence is a matter of perception, based on that of the viewer. Would you consider Homo Erectus to be intelligent? They used tools, fire, and communication as a means to coordinate everyday activities. For all intents and purposes, this qualifies as intelligence to me. If this is so, it pushes the date back even further. Now the question is, after my having looked for all of 3 minutes for this, how much more will I find with a bit more "digging"?

As I've already stated above and in my previous posts, I'm just trying to keep everyone's minds open, not close them up with facts that can change on a whim, should "new science" be discovered, as your wiki article so eloquently illustrates. People for too long have allowed themselves to be bound by someone else's words, when they don't go out and search for the truth themselves. Now, while it's true that I am guilty of my fair share of laziness when it comes to researching topics, I don't think I've ever stated anything as definite as "I KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that no other intelligent civilization has existed here, aside from us." Statements like that are made with no care for what may be discovered in the near future, and it acts to prevent anyone else from searching. That harms all of mankind.

So, to clarify, all of the current evidence is accurate, but it is subject to change. To claim it as complete fact is erroneous, and serves no other purpose than to stifle further thought on it. Learn to think outside the box, and consider some things that others may find as rediculous (such as my claims apparently), and when things are actaully discovered that challenge the common understanding, you will stand tall in knowing that you've considered things like it before.

Sorry for the length here, but it was obviously required, since no one apparently understood where I was coming from.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Borg you are claiming that another species apart from Homo Sapiens had civilisations
when in fact
there has never been any evidence that any other species but homo sapiens used civilisation as an evolutionary survival trait not only on earth but in the entire galaxy
you have no evidence
you cannot claim things happened with no evidence to back it up
you might as well say that the civilisation in antartica was built by pan dimensional mice named Frankie and Benjy
do you believe in evolution or not
if you do then you know you're wrong
if you don't then you're clearly just a creationist crank wasting everybodies time
which is it



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Borg you are claiming that another species apart from Homo Sapiens had civilisations
when in fact
there has never been any evidence that any other species but homo sapiens used civilisation as an evolutionary survival trait not only on earth but in the entire galaxy
you have no evidence
you cannot claim things happened with no evidence to back it up


What do we make of the Dropa stone discs

This is not Earth shattering news, but it throws a big question mark out there.

What are other things that you know, but won't share?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   


This is not Earth shattering news, but it throws a big question mark out there.

it certainly isn't earth shattering news
turns out to be a complete Hoax
Chu Pu Tei, Tsum Um Nui, Ernst Wegener, Vyatcheslav Saitzev, Sergei Lolladoff, do not exist
no one really knows who originated this myth
but it was certainly the Arch Deviant Erich Von Daniken who popularised it in "Chariots of the Gods"





What are other things that you know, but won't share?

thats an oxymoron you know
if I know them and wont share them then you'll never know will ya

but trust me
I have never found any evidence of Alien contact that I'm hiding
or advanced astronomical knowledge that shouldnt be there
and I have looked



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Borg you are claiming that another species apart from Homo Sapiens had civilisations
when in fact
there has never been any evidence that any other species but homo sapiens used civilisation as an evolutionary survival trait not only on earth but in the entire galaxy


Exactly. As I've stated previously, that was merely speculation on my part. Did you choose not to read that or what?



you have no evidence


Correct. And if you look at my previous post, you'll see that I also mentioned that as well. I don't know how you keep missing the word speculation in my posts. To speculate is to think outside the box, and accept a possibility that may or may not be true, since there is no evidence to support the hypothesis either way.



you cannot claim things happened with no evidence to back it up


Yet again, I was speculating here Marduk. PLEASE understand that, and accept it, as there's not much of a way to change my opinions of this planet's history.



you might as well say that the civilisation in antartica was built by pan dimensional mice named Frankie and Benjy


I could, but that'd be plagiarizing, and I will give no one the satisfaction of getting rid of me that easily. Feel free to keep trying though.



do you believe in evolution or not


Depends on what type of evolution, and if you still think it's going on or not.



if you do then you know you're wrong


More statements without proof. Please show some evidence to support that statement. I see nothing in my speculations that would hamper that theory at all.



if you don't then you're clearly just a creationist crank wasting everybodies time


Actually, I don't like to point fingers and call people names, whether it applies to them or not. It's not nice, nor is it fair. Am I a creationist? I believe that a divine being created all that we see, experience, and have, so in that respect yes I am. But I'm not a crank, since I also believe in evolution, but not to the degree that I came from some monkey somewhere, as there's no evidence to support that claim either. And don't pull some Lucy skeleton out on me, claiming that's the missing link. There's a reason there's a missing link; there's not one.



which is it


It's both. Think about it, and get back with me when you can wrap your head around it.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
you don't believe we evolved from Monkeys
thats good because we didn't
we evolved alongside monkeys from a common ancestor
this is an established scientific fact
also evolutionary theory has actually been proven
it was some time ago
I'm guessing that yuou are therefore american which from statistics seems to be the only country left on earth that doesn't pray west three times a day that believes the world was built by some guy called God in seven days
to quote Lewis Black "I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts"

fyi there is no evidence at all that we were created by a supreme being
thats what faith is for, to get you over the fact that believing that rubbish makes you just about as ignorant of the real world as they come,
god strike me down if i'm wrong



















nope look i'm still here
guess that proves that one eh

the only problem I see here Borg is that you have failed to understand that this forum is for established facts
not for endless speculation based on personal belief
did you miss the motto "deny ignorance"
your approach encourages it
the mods have stated this on several occaisons and no doubt very shortly they will be telling you the same thing
the way we collect those facts is called "archaeology" (have you heard of it, it totally disproved vast sections of the bible some time ago) and it is a science. it is built on the collection of empirical data
it is not a philosophy built on prejudice and supposition

we've been here before I seem to recall and the conversation got quite heated between us
I don't want to end up there again with you as long as you realise
this forum is not a speculators soapbox
if you want to state something then you need to back it up with facts and credible links
otherwise you are wasting everybodies time
cheers



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The discs do exist. In 1995 China releases information of a tribe of dwarfs from this area. I believe there was about 120 dwarfs from this tribe.

Part of it was made up so someone could make money from the story. The problem is the existence of these discs, the dwarves and where did they come from?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   


The discs do exist

there are no discs left by aliens who crashed in China

groups.google.com...



I have no
doubt that their saga will go on being repeated parrot-fashion,
without checking, and without the least comprehension, by
``ufologist'' after ``ufologist'' for many years to come, and
will feature in book after book. . . .



this means you sir
yes you



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
you don't believe we evolved from Monkeys
thats good because we didn't
we evolved alongside monkeys from a common ancestor
this is an established scientific fact


There is NO scientific evidence to prove that claim, and I challenge you to prove that. Show me who this missing link is. If they'd found it, it wouldn't be missing, now would it?



also evolutionary theory has actually been proven
it was some time ago


If a theory ever becomes proven scientifically, it becomes a scientific law. Surely, you must know this. Why then, if this "theory" has been "proven", as you say, has there not been a scientific shift from that of theoretic speculation(which is all that I and other scientists can do until REAL evidence appears), and true scientiifc fact? I never heard about this revelation. Has anyone else heard about it, aside from you? Again, last time I checked, a theory was just that; a healthy dose of speculation, with a little bit of truth to back it up. Which, by the way, is all that I've done.



I'm guessing that yuou are therefore american which from statistics seems to be the only country left on earth that doesn't pray west three times a day that believes the world was built by some guy called God in seven days
to quote Lewis Black "I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts"


I know this to be sarcasm, but others viewing it may not see it as being such. You may want to tone down your criticisms of the Christian faith before those members that can't take such criticism come out in force and crucify you. Just a friendly suggestion, after all.



fyi there is no evidence at all that we were created by a supreme being
thats what faith is for, to get you over the fact that believing that rubbish makes you just about as ignorant of the real world as they come,
god strike me down if i'm wrong


You, sir, yet again are correct. You're on a bit of a roll these past few days. The other pertinent fact that you always seem to "overlook", however, is that there is no evidence either way, which leaves us in the little quandry that we find ourselves in.

I can't, and won't, try to dissuade you from that line of thinking, as I'm a proponent of free thought. I don't mind you saying that you "think" something is a certain way, but I can't stand it when people make declarative statements as fact, based on "current" evidence, which is subject to change at a moment's notice.



nope look i'm still here
guess that proves that one eh


I wouldn't tempt fate if I were you. Yet another friendly suggestion.




the only problem I see here Borg is that you have failed to understand that this forum is for established facts
not for endless speculation based on personal belief
did you miss the motto "deny ignorance"


Oh no, quite the contrary. I understand the objectives of these forums perfectly. It's to discuss "alternative topics", which last time I checked, encompasses things such as speculations of a person that thinks "outside the box". The motto is to "Deny Ignorance", not to willingly accept it. As I've stated plenty of times in this thread, I don't KNOW any of what I say to be fact, but the same can be said for the theory of evolution or the theory of the missing link. These, no matter how much you try, are not established facts, as there's no concrete evidence to show that such claims are warranted. When those evidences come out, then, and ONLY then, will I consider them as being fact. ALL facts are subject to change, when new science is developed. THAT is a FACT!!



your approach encourages it
the mods have stated this on several occaisons and no doubt very shortly they will be telling you the same thing


They may, and when/if they do, I'll willingly take whatever punishments are required to make the point clear that I've done no such a thing.

In fact, if you look at my previous posts, I've been doing nothing but encouraging open-mindedness by posing another possibility to the forum members. Does that mean that I'm ignorant of the motto? No, it merely means that I subscribe to a different line of thought. I'm not denying any scientific evidence, merely suggesting that it could be taken any number of ways, to support any number of theories. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that I'm denying scientific facts just to support my claims, of which I've already stated that I have none. Again, keep trying...



the way we collect those facts is called "archaeology" (have you heard of it, it totally disproved vast sections of the bible some time ago) and it is a science. it is built on the collection of empirical data
it is not a philosophy built on prejudice and supposition


No, but it is built on this thing called carbon dating, which is errantly innacurate. If a fungus grows on top of a substance buried for millenia, it can skew the carbon dating results by several centuries. This is just as much fact as anything else that's been posted before. Carbon dating is used in science as a way to estimate the age of an object, but it is very suspect to tampering and mishandling/misdating than anything else. Look no further than here for an explanation as to why this is the case. The true science here is that science doesn't KNOW, with any certainty whatsoever, that anything happened at any point period. If the dates of things can be so easily skewed by something so small as a fungus, then I'm hesitant to lay any real faith in it as a valuable source of evidence in any of my claims.



we've been here before I seem to recall and the conversation got quite heated between us
I don't want to end up there again with you as long as you realise
this forum is not a speculators soapbox


Agreed. I'd like to have at least a place that we can meet on even footing, even if it's to say that we agree to disagree on the points being posted. I would very much like to consider you a great debating partner, as well as a friend, even though we don't see eye to eye, rather than continue to fight all the time. The debates are fun, and yes they can get quite heated, but that's the only way that the truth ever gets any light of day. It's called a "trial by fire".



if you want to state something then you need to back it up with facts and credible links
otherwise you are wasting everybodies time
cheers



Again, we agree. However, when I'm presented with some actual facts, and not more theories, I'll be more apt to accept them. Until then though, I'm lelft in the same place I've been since I started. I want to learn as much as anyone here, and am willing to listen to anything anyone has to offer.

So please, if you have any FACTS that support either side, then please show them. As for the topic, so long as there's a piece of land on Antarctica that hasn't been ran over and surveyed, I'll be able to claim, just as much as anyone else, that intelligent life could have existed there at one point.

I should at this point state that I have no intentions of being contrary to the high standards set by the boards, and those that come here. I'm merely suggesting a new possibility that has yet to be seriously considered. My suggestions, as radical as they may be, are no more plausible than those presented by current science. They fall well within the scientific discoveries of recent years, which is why I think what I do. If any of my suggestions are proven to be false, then I'll recant them. But it will take more than theory to change that.

I again thank you for enduring this long-winded response.

TheBorg



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
i agree with TheBorg. We wont know until we scan every square mile of antarctic.
and how do we know we, were the first evolution of the human species? we have seen species disappear then reappear centuries later. also how do we know were were the first species with civilization? for all we know allosaurs could have had a civilization on antarctic, or iquanadans, they were everywhere, and could have developed a civilization.
the KT (?) event would have wiped out all civilization and burried almost all traces.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Only problem is: Antarctica has been covered in ice for 35 million years.

Dinosapiens could have covered the entire continent in cities and factories and quarries and what have you: and by now it'll have all been worn down to rock dust by glacial activity.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join