Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant Underwater Lost City 'Could Rewrite History'

page: 3
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
I wasn't insinuating that the waters actually rose that high. I mean that the city might have been built in anticipation, just in case.

After all, if you moved a society 50 miles inland and you were having to move it another 50 miles inland after 500 years and again and again, eventually I'd just place the damned thing on top of a mountain and say, "Well, no where to go from here."

But, who knows. It's probably just a city that was built when an emporer said, "You know, I'd like a nice retreat up in the mountains."


If they built it because the waters rose then there would be evidence, ( beach sand, sea shells, etc. ), to prove how high the waters actually rose.

I think the reason for the elevation is that in any battle he who controls the "high" ground is usually at an advantage. . .

Just my $.02

2PacSade-


bad sentence

[edit on 26-7-2007 by 2PacSade]




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Just to reiterate what Byrd posted earlier, there is a city that date's to around 9000-10000 yrs ago. And as i posted earlier with the advances in marine archeaology there will no doubt be further discovery's (i hope). It is really the dating of these finds that is questionable. Çatalhöyük, as far as i am aware is the oldest settlement/city of its size found to date, and being as this report from the OP is over 5 yrs old and no new evidence has surfaced to confirm its validity i would not be holding my breath for any new data in the near future. Thats not to say that it isnt an interesting find and worthy of discussion.

In regards to the flood theory's they are a mostly accepted view. Glacial lakes when they have burst are known to have caused massive flooding and even contributed to climate change.There is also evidence of massive flooding in the Mediterranean due to volcanic eruptions, landslides and earthquakes, purely natural occurances not some Biblical prophecy.

link


9,000 years ago, this place was home to one of the world's largest settlements!
At a time when most of the world's people were nomadic hunter-gatherers, Çatalhöyük was a bustling town of as many as 10,000 people.


www.bbc.co


The accompanying seismic sea-wave '...flooded in far over the land and overwhelmed the city and its surroundings, and the swell of the sea so covered the sacred grove of Poseidon that nothing could be seen but the tops of the trees. A sudden tremor was sent by the god, and with the earthquake the sea ran back, dragging down Helike into the receding waters with every living person.'


news.nationalgeographic


April 4, 2007—Were ancient Egyptian cities leveled by the massive volcanic eruption that may have inspired the legend of Atlantis?
Egyptian archaeologists Monday announced they had found traces of solidified lava on the Sinai peninsula while excavating an ancient fort. According to Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, the lava hails from Santorini, whose giant eruption 3,500 years ago destroyed the Minoan civilization on nearby Crete.


news.nationalgeographic


A massive tsunami smashed Mediterranean shores some 8,000 years ago when a giant chunk of volcano fell into the sea, researchers say.


Mega floods are a natural occurance and can strike unexpectedly, thats why city's on shorelines are inundated. It is natural for us to locate ourselves on shorelines to maximise the benefits of trade and food resources. It should be expected that there are city's that have been lost in history that are buried in sediment just waiting to be discovered. That doesnt diminish how exciting these discovery's are.


Cheers mojo



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
If they built it because the waters rose then there would be evidence, ( beach sand, sea shells, etc. ), to prove how high the waters actually rose.

I think the reason for the elevation is that in any battle he who controls the "high" ground is usually at an advantage. . .


I think that would be any beach across the world. I'm pretty sure the water stopped rising there. I never said it rose any higher than it currently resides.

BTW, I agree with your idea of strategic high ground, but think such a monument such as Machu Picchu doesn't have the evidence to suggest it was built as a military fortress. There is much more evidence of it being a cultural sanctuary.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I just find it another interesting way to see how little we know about our ocean floors..who knows whats waiting in the deep blue. I often wonder why we want to go to mars..even though its cool, when we can devote some time trying to figure out whats still left on our own planet...I doubt we found everything, and technology is only getting better to allow us to do these things...IMO

BTW long time ATS fan first time poster...please be gentle


[edit on 26-7-2007 by Seikaiden]

[edit on 26-7-2007 by Seikaiden]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
"We have to find out what happened then ... where and how this civilisation vanished," he said.

These are the words of the full article. The last ones. The most important thing to discover about this civilization is how it disappeared. I suppose this huge city was a world in itself. Maybe the whole "world" of that time was wiped out by a huge flood...who knows? Anyway this is great news, i can't wait to see more



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evasius
The story according to the BBC webpage you've linked to is from Saturday, 19 January, 2002. Not sure why we never heard anything else about this in the past 5 years.

Maybe they found something vastly important & ground-breaking that it needed to be covered up.


Most likely VIMANA's and the Crystal Weapon that destroyed Atlantis

Time frame is right





posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I hope this all turns out to be Atlantis, I would be the happiest person ever. Ive always found that place fascinating.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22


After all, if you moved a society 50 miles inland and you were having to move it another 50 miles inland after 500 years and again and again, eventually I'd just place the damned thing on top of a mountain and say, "Well, no where to go from here."


I think thats a very interesting theory.

Im curious, how do they know for sure Machu Picchu is only 3 or 4 thousnad years old?

If the waters started rising 3 0r 4 inches a year im sure that would spook a lot of people. And then not sure when it was going to stop you could only assume the worst. So high ground would definetly be a safe zone.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

The Great Flood stories now have a little more support.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Malichai]



I knew the Bible was true, eat that atheist suckas.


[edit on 26-7-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Machu Pichu is only about 600 years old, built around AD 1450.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just had to butt in to correct that factoid. Carry on.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
600 years old? Wow I thought it was older than that.
How do they know its only 600 years old?

Isnt it possible a tribe found it abandoned and moved in?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Great stuff. I love to hear stories like this. There may be tons more to be found on planet earth.

The question is, is some of earth's history we learn about in school an intentional lie?

Troy



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
No, because the Incas still remembered the city and had an oral tradition. They knew who built it and when.

Teotihuacan is about 2200 years old. Maybe you had them confused?

Even Tenochtitlan is only about 700 years old.

The Maya are the oldest Mesoamerican civilization.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy

The question is, is some of earth's history we learn about in school an intentional lie?


Depends who's teaching I guess.

Scientific knowledge always changes and grows. Educational texts don't keep up. Sometimes things are wrong and disproven later, but it can take a while before it is no longer taught as fact in places like elementary school.

And there are some schools that do teach deliberate lies, or at least things that aren't science. Anywhere that is teaching creationism disguised as intelligent design, for example.

{edit to clean up quote}

[edit on 26-7-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
If the waters started rising 3 0r 4 inches a year im sure that would spook a lot of people. And then not sure when it was going to stop you could only assume the worst. So high ground would definetly be a safe zone.


You really wouldn't notice it unless you lived along a coastal flood plain... and the water has never risen that fast for very long (there's not enough water on Earth, even if we melted all the ice on the planet.)

I've studied (for a class) some of the archaeological sites along the coast of Texas at the time the water started rising (end of the last ice age.) It caused a change in fishing and gathering sites but didn't affect the lifestyles of the people beyond that.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Y'all should maybe consider Hapgood's theory for the 'flood' explanation.

It is quite interesting..

It might also give you an insight for explaining other ancient mystical dissapearances, anomalies and natural catastrophies.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
The Great Flood stories now have a little more support.
[edit on 25-7-2007 by Malichai]


Hahahahahahaha.
Haha. *cough*
...hahaha.

(1) We already know as that there have been several catostrophic floods throughout history. I don't know what "stories" you're talking about.. although thre are probably a lot of them, because it happens a lot..
(1) This story is over 5 years old. Look at the date.

Come on people, you're supposed to save us from currupt governments and so forth. At least look at the date / know basic information.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   


Machu Pichu is only about 600 years old, built around AD 1450.


You are totally right, I got my A.D. and B.C confused, sry..:



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
There was mention that the area, 'tho not very deep, was beset by currents and stirred-up murk. My memory tells me it's in the path of an estuary outflow, and the latter fact added credence to verifying it's past existence from ancient Indian Scriptures.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I read that the Indian Government didn't want to have their territory overrun by foreign archaeological powers and determined to officiate there in the light that they have sufficient technical and scientific resources.






top topics



 
58
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join