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.

 

Ancient bridge found connecting India and Srilanka !!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Read the story here !! It was found by the Shuttle during flight !!

Link Here !


Amazing !!




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
thats damn interesting.

so people made it huh?

btw, that site lists their dates funny. they write it as 17,00,000. what kinda date is that? surely they mean 170,000 years ago or 17,000 years ago.

my guess would be 17,000yrs ago, as this would be the age of mankind when humans made some of the first migrations from northern asia to northern america, so obviously the inhabitants of the asian coastline from top to bottom were very accomplished during that age, pre-ice age right?

[edit on 3/12/2007 by runetang]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Those pics ( iirc ) are a bit dated, but interesting.
Man-made ? Kind of doubt it.
Even at 17,000 yrs old, I think tidal erosion would have taken a lot of the structure away.
The linked site states 17,000,000 yrs.

There would be nothing left, at all.

Looks like a reef or shoal, to me.

Still, pretty neat to look at.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Out of all the shuttle flights and all of the images captured from satellites... this is the first time they've seen this? Right... I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The Bridge is thought to have been used by people at one time (at least theoretically) but nothing I've seen shows it's anything like that kind of age.

Wiki



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Due to its curveature its man made? Pardon? So curves don't exsist in nature? looks to me like a land bridge, although yes a very long land bridge but I mean have these people never heard of erosion?

Also I can't trust a website which has dates such a 17,00,000

Seriously what is that 17,000,000? 1,700,000?

It would be very cool if it was man made but it would seem its not.

Good find nonetheless



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
heres two statements I can make about that bridge
I'm not going to bother arguing with the true believers so read this and decide for yourselves
1) it is claimed that its man made
2) it is made out of coral



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

btw, that site lists their dates funny. they write it as 17,00,000. what kinda date is that? surely they mean 170,000 years ago or 17,000 years ago.


Indians write their numbers slightly differently to us. So 17,00,000 is correct. It equates to 1,700,000 in western figures.

However, 'Adam's Bridge' is a natural feature. Over the millennia, in common with tens of thousands of other natural features all over the world, humans have invented 'just so' stories to explain how they came about.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
IMO....the bridge is man-made.......but over an existing landmass.......I think whomever made the bridge just enhanced local land formation to make it.....(i.e. added rocks for a more stable, level surface for use as a bridge)

It's amazing all the things found by high-level photography !! More is sure to come !



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
LALALALALALALA
youre still not listening
try Wiki

Rama's Bridge, also called Adam's Bridge is a chain of limestone shoals, between the islands of Mannar, near northwestern Sri Lanka, and Rameswaram, off the southeastern coast of India. The bridge is 30 miles (48 km) long and separates the Gulf of Mannar (southwest) from the Palk Strait (northeast). Some of the sandbanks are dry and the sea in the area is very shallow, being only 3 ft to 30 ft (1 m to 10 m) deep. This seriously hinders navigation. It was reportedly passable on foot as late as the 15th century until storms deepened the channel

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Bridge
Limestone shoal is another name for Coral
Coral is not man made
Coral is not a good building material as its brittle
Coral could not be excavated and moved before the 20th century
the Coral in this location took a very long time to form

basically you've been reading pseudohistory
even wiki says that people used to use the limestone as a footbridge in its natural state until recently when a storm deepened the channel

placing anything on the channel insubstantial would soon wash away because of tide action
placing anything substantial on the channel such as rock or hardcore would still be there and very self evident

there are limestone shoals like this all over the world
not one of any of the others has ever been claimed to be man made



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
IMO....the bridge is man-made.......but over an existing landmass.......I think whomever made the bridge just enhanced local land formation to make it.....(i.e. added rocks for a more stable, level surface for use as a bridge)

Actually, it really is natural. There's a number of these around. It's a limestone shoal:
en.wikipedia.org...


It's amazing all the things found by high-level photography !! More is sure to come !

Do hang around the Google Earth boards as well. You can learn a lot about what's on the Earth by reading that site!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
you're only reading the first post and then submitting yours arent you byrd
do you wonder how I know that ?

scroll up



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I find it funny how many people put the 'automatic BS' mode on, soon as something comes up contradicting the theory that human's didn't exist after 25 thousand years ago, or whatever it is now. Probably because it either contradicts Darwin's theory, or christianity... which covers pretty much the majority of people's beliefs.

It's as if there is no way "millions of years old" and "man-made" can go hand in hand in a single sentence. Wouldn't it be logical to think that if life exists/existed elsewhere in the universe (pretty much impossible to deny), that theres a VERY good chance that ATLEAST one civilization from another planet in the entire universe, came to Earth in the past? Wouldn't it be MUCH more logical to assume that is where we plus some of these objects/structures came from? ...and not the crazy ideas that we evolved from worms etc?

Not saying this bridge was definately man made, but it's getting frustrating seeing all these people dismissing and throwing away so many finds/claims/theories that goes against their beliefs. Beliefs that were programmed into their head by mainstream. With all the people today that are incabable of finding truth for themselves, just think how easy it is for the powers that be to hide the truth and program some other bull# story into your head.


[edit on 29/3/07 by Navieko]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   


just think how easy it is for the powers that be to hide the truth and program some other bull# story into your head

like for instance thinking that aliens did it rather than the human race alone.
so we shouldn't be proud to be human then
we should leave everything to a higher power like you're insinuating is already responsible for our success
do you vote republican ?


problem with some people Navieko is that when they are being played they think they aren't even in the game

fyi
homo sapiens sapiens 100,000 bp
homo sapiens archaic 250,000 bp (before present)
en.wikipedia.org...
Darwins theory was never accepted as 100% correct by orthodoxy but was regarded as an actual step forward which did in fact lead to the modern theory of evolution
en.wikipedia.org...
at the time the predominant belief was that God had made everything in 4004bce and everything had remained unchanged since then with the exception of a few mythological creatures that couldn't swim very well

the bridge has been proven to be a natural feature, and I agree
it is a crazy idea to suggest that we evolved from worms
is it one of yours



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko

Not saying this bridge was definately man made


Other than the fact that it's not a bridge, why would you ever think for one minute that it was manmade? Do you also think the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland is manmade (because according to legend it is)?

And the Devil's Tower National Monument was obviously built by the Devil himself



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
My rant was aimed not at this bridge, or any particular object for that matter;
It was to those people who automatically dismiss claims/theories/finds because it contradicts the mainstream belief about evolution or christianity.

There are so many other logical explanations ...but because the truth may hurt our ego, we go into denial? Get real. I'm sure the larger majority of human inhabitants would rather find out our true history, where we came from -- why we're here. Or atleast, "there was a time" when they did.


Seems less and less people are even bothering to question a different explanation no matter how plausible. All due to the effect of mass brainwashing from the mainstream...quite sad.

[edit on 29/3/07 by Navieko]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
My rant was aimed not at this bridge, or any particular object for that matter;
It was to those people who automatically dismiss claims/theories/finds because it contradicts the mainstream belief about evolution or christianity.

christianity is a mainstream belief now ?
when did this happen,
and who's gonna tell the 4 billion people that aren't christians



Originally posted by Navieko
There are so many other logical explanations ...but because the truth may hurt our ego, we go into denial? Get real. I'm sure the larger majority of human inhabitants would rather find out our true history, where we came from -- why we're here. Or atleast, "there was a time" when they did.


youre over generalising, is this still your earlier claim that aliens did it ?
the larger majority of human inhabitants (i.e the non christians
) do know where we came from
the theory of evolution goes from strength to strength often overturning its own previous details when more evidence refines the theory further making it more and more perfect each time.
www.eurekalert.org...
theres no aliens required and generally the concensus of the larger majority of human inhabitants is that anyone who thinks there are aliens involved is a nutter


Originally posted by Navieko
Seems less and less people are even bothering to question a different explanation no matter how plausible. All due to the effect of mass brainwashing from the mainstream...quite sad.

seems to me the only sad thing is nutters who believe in alien human origins who think the truth has been hidden when they don't actually know any of the details and still think theories put forward over 150 years ago are totally valid as a point in an argument
now thats not mass brainwashing by the mainstream
its just ignorance



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko

Not saying this bridge was definately man made, but it's getting frustrating seeing all these people dismissing and throwing away so many finds/claims/theories that goes against their beliefs.
[edit on 29/3/07 by Navieko]


I believe myself to be a very open minded individual actually I nearly always look at both sides of ones arguement. But the proof, PROOF is that it is a natural formation, if there were some bricks thrown in there or some other materials which should not be i'd be like well there is a possibility but there isn't.

Sorry about that but i'm not really in the mood to be told that I put up my BS filter whenever something goes against my beliefs, you don't even know the beliefs of any of the people who have said this bridge is not man made.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by almeister 5000
I believe myself to be a very open minded individual actually I nearly always look at both sides of ones arguement. But the proof, PROOF is that it is a natural formation, if there were some bricks thrown in there or some other materials which should not be i'd be like well there is a possibility but there isn't.

Sorry about that but i'm not really in the mood to be told that I put up my BS filter whenever something goes against my beliefs, you don't even know the beliefs of any of the people who have said this bridge is not man made.


...

Than obviously I wasn't referring to you. I thought I made it clear -- I was referring to those who dismiss things based ONLY on the fact that it goes against their beliefs. Looking at both sides of the arguement is all I asked. So why the hostility at me?


Also once again I'll point out that the bridge isn't really what my point was about. I agree there's a good chance it isn't manmade... Although I'm not the type to say I'm 100% sure about it, as that would assume I've been back in time, saw how the people lived, saw the type of technology/power they have and seen whether or not they built the bridge.

Certainty, based solely on the current perception of once's reality, is a naive trait in the human nature... It's the one thing stopping, or at the least severely slowing down mankind's right to find the truth, in it's most purest form.

[edit on 30/3/07 by Navieko]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
seems to me the only sad thing is nutters who believe in alien human origins who think the truth has been hidden when they don't actually know any of the details and still think theories put forward over 150 years ago are totally valid as a point in an argument
now thats not mass brainwashing by the mainstream
its just ignorance


Ah, I get it now.
You're part of the rapidly decreasing majority that still remain oblivious to the mainstream propaganda being force fed down your throat.

Sorry, I don't debate with 'nutters'.



new topics




 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join