Proof Of Advanced Civilization 500,000 Years Ago?

www.catchpenny.org...





from this angle you can see the accompanying hieroglyphs
which say

doesnt say anything about lightbulbs and in fact if they were lightbulbs then they'd need to explain how they managed to produce soot which does in fact cover just about every ancient structure in Egypt which are not as you may have heard soot free


see if you can spot the soot free edges on a re-set block in this picture


[edit on 7-4-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Marduk]

Oh but are the sooth thousand of years old, or is it only 200, 300 or 400 years old?

Lightbulb or not, in ancient times they experimented with chemicals so they could easily have made simple batteries. And they dont need a lightbulb to make light, its enough with a thin tread of metal that glow a bit. A glowing thread is not as good as a modern lightbulb, but...

er yes
the lightbulbs they used were a marvellous invention utilising a thing called a lamp which was then filled with a chemical called oil to which a piece of wick was added which was then heated until everything went brighter

Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age by Richard Rudgely ISBN 0-09-922372-4
Ancient Traces by Michael Baigent ISBN 0-14-026448-5
Forbidden Archeology by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson ISBN 0-89213-294-9

The first attempts at a light bulb were exactly as you describe - heating a filament of wire to an intense degree so that it glows brightly

And they were failures. Thew wires oxidized in that massive heat - they burned away to nothing. Even when placed in a vacuum - as modern bulbs are - the filaments melted or vaporized too quickly to be useful.

What is needed is a material that can be made into a very thin wire that heats nearly instantly - a thicker wire would light slowly and unevenly - AND has a very high melting point under a vacuum. That material is tungsten.

if you know how the ancient egyptians would have managed to create extremely thin filaments from this rare metal, and then housed them in glass thin enough to lose heat as quickly as it absorbed it, while under a vacuum, well, I'd like to hear about it.

I appreciate the description Marduk but I had difficulty matching the imagery you described in your translation of the hieroglyphs to the depicted scene. I did however, find a website that debunks the lightbulb idea and describes the images in another context that made more sense to me: www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...
Perhaps yours is the correct version or a correct translation to an incorrectly posted (by your source, not you) hieroglyph from somewhere else in the Temple of Hathor. I really don't know which so I am just sharing what I found, FYI.

I suppose it does resemble a Crookes/Geissler/Plucker tube... vacuum would have been technologically possible...minerals, ok not necessarily tungsten, zinc sulfide... air; no replacement with pure gasses...current: simple battery (ala Baghdad)...Hey, cool Maltese cross! Wait a minute... Have fun debunkers (I know you will! )! I admit, these things don't last long but it does look similar

Sorry, I should have posted a few links.

www.fas.harvard.edu...
www.orau.org...
physics.usc.edu...
www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk...

Every time a thread like this is started it is a shameful reflection on the high quality of ATS threads. While it is good to see that people are intelligent enough to debunk this, it is sad to see a spark plug in mud being called "proof" of advanced civilization from ages ago. Where is the critical thinking when making a thread like this? No science, no credibility, no facts, just a lot of hype.

I applaud everyone who debunked this and urge people to avoid contributing to nonsense threads. It makes ATS look bad. Sure, it is good to be open-minded and to explore the possibilities, but this "proof" is pure garbage. Do we wish ATS to be thought of like the Weekly World News and other rags? Lets keep ATS Above the nonsence.

As far as Egyptian lightbulbs.... Why did they entomb so many oil lamps next to the mummies, if they had lightbulbs. Surely a king would merit burial with a magical lightbulb if such existed. There were several exquisite oil lamps found in various tombs, not one electric lamp.

Wow!! Looks like Terapin needs to go to the loo. He seems pretty pissed at this thread!!

Dude, why is it so unfortunate that we have people like you (A dime a dozen) who try to prove that they are the greatest things that have happened since civilization began? The pseudo 'know alls'! Now why am I saying this? Because unfortunately, apart from the rhetoric you spew from time to time, you don't even care to read the headers/Titles of the threads, so carried away are you by childish exuberance.

Is there a question mark at the end of the title of this thread? What does that mean? LOL, you gotta get back to Wren and Martin to polish up your grammer!

Cheers!

It's also a hell of a lot of work to get a three-minute glow of light, when you can just soak some cotton on a stick in some rendered cow fat and have at least half an hour of better light

Mike. Regardless of the question mark you often put at the end of your thread titles, sometimes with exclamation marks as well, many of them are sheer nonsense with little critical thought put into them before you post. This one in particular is a perfect example. You did not do any background research on the story, you simply posted it with Hype. ATS is not a Hype site like the cheap rags at the supermarket checkout counter. The object here is to Deny Ignorance and you promote it. That is the difference.

You are clearly a smart person with a lot of creativity. Why not put that talent to work in a more positive manner instead of filling the board up with nonsense like a points whore. Your OP in this thread ignored any common sense research and lacks critical thinking. It is a classic Weekly World News Hype item. You can do much better and the board could use your creative thinking if it were used in the right direction.

Sadly, I guess you will continue to fill the board with nonsense and imagined Mars structures. Rather than making any attempt to Deny Ignorance, you will promote it. Next up, a pic of Elvis's alien bigfoot baby.

Since you commented on my Mars threads regarding the possibility of the existence of ‘structures’, I thought I’d digress from the topic for a bit.

The trouble with you terapin is that you can’t believe that life exists anywhere else in the universe. Errr…Do you? If yes, then as you would be aware, the Solar System is part of the universe too? And Mars is part of the Solar System. So what’s the big deal if Mars did have some life in the ancient past? What’s so mind boggling and impossible about it? What do we know what Mars was in the distant past? So, if there is a possibility that life existed there, could there be vestiges of a bygone civilization there?

Now, I said ‘possibility’. Can you discount it completely and say it’s ‘impossible’? If that be the case, then we have little in common and it’s end of discussion. I’m sure, with your ‘scientific’ background, you are aware that you won’t find buildings resembling the arcades of Las Vegas on Mars! It would be naïve to think so. But probably that’s what you want to see as proof!

And hey, if you find my Mars threads outrageous, then what prompts you to have a look-see at them? Oh yeah, to debunk them outright with a smirk accompanied with your trademark snide comments to try and impress all with your misplaced ‘analyses’.

You mentioned that I’m making an attempt at promoting ignorance, but needless to say, you are promoting skepticism by denying possibilities. Hallmarks of a closed mind!

Press the ignore button now and have a nice day!

Cheers!




[edit on 15-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Come now Mike, don't try and put thoughts in my head. I never stated that I don't think life off Earth is impossible, in fact I have stated, on record, quite the opposite. Life is quite impressive in it's abundance and there is significant possibility that it exists elsewhere in the universe. This does not mean that showing a geological formation and calling it a structure is OK. You should be offering evidence not blind speculation.

What I have trouble with is how you present the material without any critical thinking and an abundance of hype. No examination of the relevant details, just mindless speculation. To Deny Ignorance, is to examine with logic and critical thinking. It is not about wild speculation without regard to the facts. In this thread, you failed to do even the most basic investigation into the subject. You promote an idea that has been previously debunked. No serious investigation was done regarding the age or authenticity of the object, yet you go ahead and promote it as possibly 500,000 years old. It only took seconds to see that that claim was baseless and it would have been far better for you to begin there. I am not at all closed minded on the subject of ancient civilizations and their technology, nor about the possibility of life on Mars or elsewhere, but I would never post an item about an ancient device, that is clearly a hoax. You are intelligent enough to know the difference.

You made a conscious choice to dump the story here, knowing that it had little merit. That deliberate decision to post a story without any further thought, is clearly promoting ignorance. Why is it that your threads seem to follow the pattern of wild story, without any scientific evidence? I am not trying to pick on you Mike, and I have stated that you are obviously clever, but it is also clear that with a modest amount of effort on your part, your threads could be far more valueable with less hype. You can do better than this.

Okay, I'm the sort of person who likes to hear both sides of an argument before reaching any conclusions and although I agree, Terapin that a 500,000 year old civilization sounds really crazy (too much so for me), I am not willing to completely shut the door on the idea that there may have been advanced civilizations before us (emphasis on may have been). My logic is such: it was once believed that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the solar system, that the sun was as old as the universe and that life required oxygen, sunlight and a bevy of other things for survival. All of these previous "facts" were proven wrong through rigorous scientific investigation of the data collected and I think it would be a shame to put a stop to this sort of exploration altogether. That being said, it is also difficult to remove bias in science. Often we cannot help chosing to believe one thing or another is more likely because we want it to be true. This is not the way science should be, but it cannot be avoided so long and human beings are in the driver's seat. I came to this website hoping to debate various possibilities in a civil fashion but I too have fallen victim to harsh criticism as many times as I have enjoyed thoughtful discussions. Terapin, I share your passion for wanting to squash what I believe is completely ridiculous too (especially when it comes to creationism sneaking into science) but I have to learn to restrain myself or risk losing out on what ATS has to offer (if you piss off too many people, you can get banned). I find it is best to not even enter threads where people are considering things I find preposterous. I find I enjoy myself more if I just stick to places where I am less likely to get into wasteful scraps with others. As a fellow scientist (I suspect you are), I think you can appreciate the hardships heaped on the giants upon whose shoulders we stand today. I think we should be taking full advantage of a society where new ideas don't get us burned at the stake. If our solar system itself is in it's second incarnation (specifically from the nebula left behind when the previous one bit the dust; Occam's razor: simplest explanation for the heavy elements in our current solar system), why exlcude the rise of civilizations before our own? Certainly there are biochemical, anatomical and physiological boundaries that prevent the emergence of technology in most instances but given the age of our species in comparison to the age of known civilization, I would be hard-pressed to rule out the possibility of previous technological emergence (perhaps even for reasons we have yet to consider). In addition, anthropologists are making great strides in learning more about earlier Homo species and in particular, I am eager to learn more about H. neandertalis since hints of culture (burial practices, art & caring for their sick) remain and are accepted as fact. More than a hundred thousand years is definitely too long if we consider where we where in our evolution but tens of thousands may not be. How many times have we gotten ourselves into trouble by being egocentrically biased in science? Personally, I am trying not to make the same mistake again and expect a different result that those who came before me (insane!) and I hope both sides will at least respectfully consider my words, even if my views are not shared.

the size of the human population is something you should take into account when theorizing without evidence
around 75,000 years ago it was reduced to just a few thousand
then the ice age descended making life a hard enough struggle without any possibility of forming large advanced groups
at the end of the ice age the human population worldwide is estimated at about 4 million people
thats less than the current population of most major cities
so basically
human beings were not concentrated in any one place enough to have formed any sizeable civilisation that we do not know about
its ok theorizing
but you're not doing that
you're speculating without evidence
and that is not scientific at all
so why bother

I agree Xtal, that it is good to be curious, inquisitive, and open minded about all subjects. The difference here, is that Mike posted clearly fraudulent information without doing any basic background checks.

Here is a good example from the OP:

First he makes a statement that it is indeed half a million years old. There is no evidence for this age at all and a few seconds of research indicates that. Next, he asks how it got inside such an old rock. It didn't as the "rock" is not old. Then he goes off on wild speculations based on imagination. There is no credible substance to his OP and THAT is the issue here. He also loves to make a statement, and then weasel out of it by ending it with a question mark.

The ATS Motto is Deny Ignorance. His post perpetuates it. There is no attempt at attaining credibility at all. It is simply tabloid hype, and that type of material is poor caliber for ATS. Had he found an interesting item, done a bit of credible research on the subject to confirm the data, and then presented it for discussion, that would be different. It is always great to learn about new ideas and look deeper into them. The world is full of amazing and interesting things. Posting a story about a mud encrusted sparkplug and promoting it as proof of technologically advanced ancient civilizations is promoting ignorance in the extreme. His Mars threads are much the same. -Look at this odd photo, it must be alien structures-, with no data to back it up other than the infamous "it looks like."

I am all for the posting of interesting and unusual topics, but credibility is key. To do no background checks whatsoever on a topic, but instead to promote nonsense as factual, is simply perpetuating a hoax. Hoaxing on ATS is frowned upon. That is my point. Mike is an inteligent individual, but I wish he would stop playing games and being such a points whore. ATS is not supposed to be a tabloid.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Terapin]

How did you arrive at these population counts? Did your sources take into account the fragility of human remains? The vast majority of biomass decays and most of what people make does the same. I realize the ice age was harsh but this does not mean life was hard everywhere. Granted fewer places would have been attractive if one assumes people did not adapt sufficiently to changes in climate, but if anything I think the reduction of viable niches would have concentrated people into areas that were more tolerable. I am curious as to how you arrived at 4 million but I assume this census is based on known archeological sites (including remains), leaving nothing for anyone else to find? Is this the end of archeology? Has everything worth finding already been discovered? Case closed! Marduk has all the answers! Progress halts the instant faith substitutes exploration and this is in essence what you are asking me to do: believe you. If you really think this case is closed, then your journey to find the answers is complete and you can feel free to move on to something else. I have not reached that point yet so until I see something more convincing, I have every intention of continuing to search. On one hand, I envy you for the satisfaction you feel in having a model that satisfies your curiousity but on the other, I am saddened by the haste with which you make conclusions that lead to abandonment of any new discoveries that happen to challenge your model. If CNN came out with breaking news tomorrow that a previously unearthed Egpytian crypt contained a fully assembled Crooke's tube, what would happen to your theory? If anthropologists stopped looking because they thought they had found everything already, then it would be a horrible shame to miss this! Granted that specific event has not happened, but others like it have time and time again throughout history; something called, "The Dark Ages". I respect your oppinion and accept the possibility that you may be right but at the same time, I have learned through my own personal experiences that most of the time, the truth lies halfway between extreme polar opposites. Yes, the Earth was round but it was not the center of the solar system. Yes, the Earth has oxygen now but it didn't start out that way. Yes, populations squeeze through bottlenecks when nature throws a curve ball but let's not underestimate the survival instinct here. Everyone agrees that there was a significant amount of migration going on. If people did not have the technology to adapt, there would be fewer habitable places for people to migrate to and people would be more concentrated, if not as concentrated as we believe (since we cannot possibly know; we were not there!) they should be to become civilized. Dilution would be a bigger issue if adaption to harsh climates actually occured. Inuit are one example of a culture that has adapted to these climates but lack what we consider technology (not to be confused with culture). Was this sort of living the rule rather than the exception in such circumstances? Not necessarily. When we look at the world today, where do we find the most technological progress? I would argue that necessity truly is the mother of invention and that Inuit solutions may not have applied to people who held a different system of beliefs and values. In addition, food sources available to the Inuit were not universally available to everyone else and this in itself would have triggered the development of alternative strategies (weapons, life style, etc.) to keep these other populations fed. They must have survived because I am not Inuit! The Inuit were not known for making trans-Atlantic whaling trips either but one Native American group did just that during the ice age and genetic evidence ties them to the Basque. Let's throw out the bathwater when it gets cold but try not the pitch the baby with it. I came here to learn, not to poop on someone else's party.

www.telusplanet.net...
Just to put everything in perspective.

Ok I am glad to have some support in this matter, I read the opening post checked out the link and I though I must be missing something because I thought it was RREEAALLYYY A SSSSTTTTRRRREEEETTTTCCCCCCHHH, to see the proof as a light bulb. Sorry I mean no offense, but it did make me think that there could be other sources of light that could have been used back then that we do not use today. I have seen several unexplained space craft in my life and one thing that I have always noted and have not heard much if any about is the lighting on them. I have always seen the lighting as not man made or artificial light. I should start a thread on that one because it is so different than man made light, it is like capturing real light. In the dulce papers it speaks about the halls having an alternate type of lighting.I am not sure what type it is in dulce, but. I am off topic here so bye for now!