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.

 

History lost

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I find it extremely difficult to believe that human culture and organized civilization only date back to 6000-8000bc. Yet how could so much evidence of past civilizations be so reclusive to confirm? I have a theory that I hope that others on this site could comment on. I have been dwelling on this topic since I read the news of the confirmation by scientists of an airborne comet detonation over south central Canada dated around 10500 bc. The headline with this news was that it was the possible catalyst for the extinction of the mammoths. I believe this be a monumental understatement. It is interesting that this particular discovery coincides in its relative timeframe with the fabled destruction of Atlantis, the epoch of the great flood and Noah (a story not only relayed in the bible but by many other cultures) and the end of the earth’s last ice age.

Using the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter as a model, could a fragmented comet of many small and/or large sections have impacted earth during the period of this impact discovery in Canada and we have only found evidence in one area so far? Using the general latitude in Canada of this detonation and tracing it around the globe a comet fragment large enough to impact could have hit the Atlantic or Pacific leaving no visible trace and smaller airborne detonations were possible from western Europe all the way to the Pacific. A highly fragmented comet detonating in earths atmosphere at that latitude not only would have created the conditions sufficient enough to cause rapid, massive melting of the northern glaciers it would also have introduced an enormous amount of new water vapor to our planet. Can we say rain for 40 days and 40 nights? A combination of the rapid melting of the northern glaciers and the added newly introduced water to our planet would not only have caused a sudden, extreme rise in sea levels (beyond what scientists say is possible by only the melting of the glaciers), it would also introduce an enormous added weight burden on the crust of our planet. This added weight would have created extreme seismic activity, volcanic eruptions and tectonic plate movements.

With that said it is my belief that this event literally ‘washed-away’ and submerged most of earths prior civilizations. At the time of this event the upper portions of the northern hemisphere would have been locked in ice, and for hundreds of miles south of the ice far too cold for high population densities. Civilizations then, even more so than they are today, would have concentrated most of their populations along coastal continental regions or on islands out at sea. The sea levels before this event would have been substantially lower than they are today. Much more than the 300 or so feet that scientists claim they have risen since the melting of the glaciers. They calculate this based only on the existing water on our planet that the glaciers would have contained- not including the additional water introduced by the comet. So it is my belief that this cataclysmic event would have created conditions that could have made it possible to sink and submerge the island (if not most islands at the time) of Atlantis, produce the massive regional continental flood and heavy precipitation of Noah, abruptly end our last ice age and doom all of the civilizations within hundreds of miles of any coastal regions to be washed away, buried and lost at sea.

What do others on ATS think?




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Howdy Thereismoretoit

An interesting speculation, I would recommend you read The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith. This book is the basis of the news story. It is not fringe pseudo science.

The theory however doesn't support world wide floods, those are not supported by the available evidence.

We may find coastal civilizattions but at the time no evidence for them have been found. In particular no unknown ship wrecks, pottery styles, habitation levels or burials.

If they existed they either led a very unusual life style or we have been extraordinarily unlucky in finding any of there remains. Perhaps more probable is if they existed they were not technologically advanced as we understand the concept.

Perhaps we will have better luck in the future.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theresmoretoit
...the upper portions of the northern hemisphere would have been locked in ice, and for hundreds of miles south of the ice far too cold for high population densities. Civilizations then, even more so than they are today, would have concentrated most of their populations along coastal continental regions or on islands out at sea. The sea levels before this event would have been substantially lower than they are today. Much more than the 300 or so feet that scientists claim they have risen since the melting of the glaciers.


I especially like this idea. Then all that remained of those lost civilizations would be buried under, well, a LOT of sand and sediment.

Iagree that if this happened as you said, that there would be mass floodings. But more importantly I think if large parts of a comet broke into pieces and some of them landed in the oceans, then huge tsunamis would result.

Tsunamis would cause what was on the coasts to be completely destroyed and largely swept back out to see before the rise of the sea levels. So not only would the remains be in the sea along the old coastline, but there wouldn't be much remains anyway due to the tsunamis.

The other thing I liked about your theory is that it pulls together many ancient stories from different cultures in different areas.

What I would like to see now is links to scientists claims that 10,000 years ago the water levels were 300 feet bleow now, and links to other sites and stories that support your claim.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
They've recently found at least one city that was lost due to the rising sea level. There is the one off Japan and another in the Indian Ocean discovered during the tsunami a while back. The "rising sea level destroyed coastal cities" theory has been around for some time now. Humans tend to settle on the coast fro trade and beach access. I guess it's hard to surf in the mountains.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
i would recommend the work of Sir Nicholas Shackleton. Use google scholar to find on line samples of his work.

One note: Sea level rises are not clear cut, this is due to the variables caused by the asymmetric subsidence and uplift of the land. This is particularly true of land that was once covered by ice. Earth quakes and other shift can dramatically altered a shoreline.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Thank you for the info a Sir Nickolas Shackleton. Facinating read. Of particular interest to me was the info on the glaciation and interglaciation periods caused by the earths relative change in orbit around the sun. A change in earths orbit could have brought the planet into the line of sight of a past comets trajectory.

It is understandable about what the sea levels were in our past. Who really knows for sure. My theory was only to try to introduce the possibility that a highly fragmented comet could have introduced an enormous volume of additional water to the planet which would really skew any calculations made today. From the claims that I have read scientists, and this is paraphrased, claim that the most that our sea levels could have risen was between 300 and 400 feet since approx 20000 years ago( www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/). My speculation is that, with the added volume introduced to the planet, could the the levels have risen substantially more- say 1000-1500 feet? This would completely change the matrix where we would think of the old shorelines as having had been. With the added weight from this water pushing up the continents (and the new water volume) could the shoreline of, say, the United States have been 300-400 miles farther out to sea. Just my theory at this point. In my mind it seems and to answer how so much archeological evidence could be so elusive to find. It's buried under 1000 feet of sediment out at sea.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Again an interesting speculation

As to the volumes needed I cannot say. I would recommend asking that question (about comets) at the Bad Astronomy's Questions and Answers section. They are good at providing parameters for such quesitons.

In my own limited knowledge of the forces involved, a comet of that size (to bring that much water) would have had far more devastating effects than the damage thought to have been done 20,000-10000 year ago.

www.bautforum.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Archerette
 


I agree. It at least tries to tie together some of these events which all relate to sea levels, catastrophe and the confirmation of a comet impact during the time period. You are also right on your comment on the tsunami. It would have been unprecedented in my opinion. A large enough fragment could have displaced an enormous amount of water in a fraction of a second and detonated at the same time. Can we say big bang?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Actually, I'm one of the scholars weighing in on this debate on another site.


Originally posted by Theresmoretoit
I find it extremely difficult to believe that human culture and organized civilization only date back to 6000-8000bc.

Human culture dates back to about 2 million years. Cities themselves date to 8,000 BC or thereabouts but there were other settlements that are older than the cities.


Yet how could so much evidence of past civilizations be so reclusive to confirm?

Lack of researchers and technicians to locate and process the material. We have about (I am not kidding) 20 tons of material in the museum that we are processing... very slowly because we have a small staff and small pool of volunteers.


I have a theory that I hope that others on this site could comment on. I have been dwelling on this topic since I read the news of the confirmation by scientists of an airborne comet detonation over south central Canada dated around 10500 bc.

In fact, it's not confirmed. They speculated this, but since the announcement other geologists and scientists have stepped forward to say "there's no evidence."


The headline with this news was that it was the possible catalyst for the extinction of the mammoths.

Only if (as I and others pointed out) you postulate a comet that fragments into missles that only swoop down and kill mammoths and mastodons while miraculously leaving two different species of elephants (the same size and living in the same latitudes) alive. And the comet also miraculously kills off short faced bears (but not other bears), the giant bison (but not other bison), marsupial lions in Australia (while leaving other marsupials alive), giant birds in the South Pacific (leaving ostriches and emus and so forth alive), killing the wolly rhinocerous but leaving two other species of rhinocerouses, killing all the horses in the Americas but leaving them alive in Asia and Europe and Africa... etc, etc.

In other words, a species-targeting comet... like a cosmic ICBM triggered to float over the planet until it found a speices that was supposed to be destroyed and then landing on only those animals.

We don't buy that.


Using the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter as a model, could a fragmented comet of many small and/or large sections have impacted earth during the period of this impact discovery in Canada and we have only found evidence in one area so far?

They didn't find an impact crater (and there's no deformation of the rocks or traces of a mass explosion (think Tungaska) anywhere there. We do have impact craters from about that time (one's in Odessa, Texas) but they are not large enough to have more than a slight local impact.


Using the general latitude in Canada of this detonation and tracing it around the globe a comet fragment large enough to impact could have hit the Atlantic or Pacific leaving no visible trace and smaller airborne detonations were possible from western Europe all the way to the Pacific.

Possible, yes, but we'd see evidence of the tsunami from the ocean impact.


A highly fragmented comet detonating in earths atmosphere at that latitude not only would have created the conditions sufficient enough to cause rapid, massive melting of the northern glaciers it would also have introduced an enormous amount of new water vapor to our planet.


They didn't melt that rapidly. Rapid melts like that would leave some pretty impressive traces on the landscape of huge floods plus an ocean dieoff of species from the fresh water. Google for "The Scablands" and you'll see what a rapid flood from glacier melt looks like (the date of that event was about 10,000 years ago.)


Can we say rain for 40 days and 40 nights? A combination of the rapid melting of the northern glaciers and the added newly introduced water to our planet would not only have caused a sudden, extreme rise in sea levels (beyond what scientists say is possible by only the melting of the glaciers),

Uhm... the water in the glaciers isn't "newly introduced". It's water we've always had around, but in solid form. There were periods (Cretaceous) when there was almost no ice around.


it would also introduce an enormous added weight burden on the crust of our planet.

It's the other way around... as the ice sheets melt, the land is freed from the weight of the ice and begins slowly rising.


This added weight would have created extreme seismic activity, volcanic eruptions and tectonic plate movements.

Holocene wasn't unusually active from a tectonic sense.


They calculate this based only on the existing water on our planet that the glaciers would have contained- not including the additional water introduced by the comet.

I think you may not have a good sense of the size of comets. Their nuclei are small... most are under the size of a city block. Shoemaker-Levy 9 was about the size of a small city.

The impact from dumping 20 square kilometers of water on the Earth is not that great, given the size of the Earth and the size of the oceans.

And something the size of THAT comet would have left a lot of traces (which they don't find) on the land. Would it have caused the extinction of the horses in the Americas while simultaneously leaving the ones in the rest of the world alive and then killing off only the meat-eating kangaroos of Australia? No. There's no orbital pattern that would allow that kind of kill.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Another point to consider:

This comet theory was proposed to explain the reason why the Clovis Culture in North American suddenly vanished and was replaced by other cultures. The Clovis Culture was spread throughout North America and appears about 13,000 years ago or so.

There's actually older sites here in the Americas (Monte Verde in South America is generally considered to be 20,000 years old.) Like all old sites, there's no trace of them living a higher lifestyle. In all cases (10,000 years ago and earlier) we find people living in crude huts made from brush or underneath large rocky overhangs. They kill animals with spears or by using traps or by running them off cliffs ("buffalo jump" is what those are called.)

Clovis points exist in all areas where the extinct megafauna were hunted. They're huge, heavy spearpoints and they vanish from the archaeological record about the time the megafauna die... because you can't hunt a rabbit or a quail with a spear designed for killing elephants.

So the supposed comet (no evidence of the thing) was postulated to explain why the culture and flintknapping practices here in the Americas changed from the Clovis technology to newer technology. But the "a comet did it" theory really doesn't add up.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I have some theory about our true history, remember this is only speculation.

It seems to me that the oldest known religions are pagan in nature. They seem to have been worldwide and still exist in primitive tribal cultures. These beliefs/ cultures seem to live as one with nature, the whole giving as much as you take kinda thing.

Lets zoom up to modern day, I believe the main religions that exist to day threaten our very existence on earth. And that Doom could be any day because of zealots and their extremist beliefs.

This is what I believe happened to a very advanced human civilization between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago. There are theory's that a ancient nuke war occurred on Earth in the distant past as discussed here Link on ATS

I believe the world embraced paganism after this event both to heal the planet and the people who survived. This is also why I believe we are not taught about this past advanced civilization...If we understand our past we are less likely to repeat it.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I have some theory about our true history, remember this is only speculation.


There's a lot of good information on what really happened. Check out Wikipedia, for instance.


It seems to me that the oldest known religions are pagan in nature. They seem to have been worldwide and still exist in primitive tribal cultures.

The oldest religions are not Chrisitanity...that's true. But before there were religions, there were tribal beliefs called anamism and shamanism. Those are even older than religions.

Tribes generally don't have a religion (they have a belief in spirits and powers but not gods.) When tribes become a nation (many tribes) then their spirit world also develops the idea of a leader of sprits, and we get a belief in gods (that'd be your paganism.)

So all cultures developed religions if they had enough people... but the religions weren't very similar. Olmec and Greek beliefs were very different.


These beliefs/ cultures seem to live as one with nature, the whole giving as much as you take kinda thing.

Uhm... no. Take the ancient Greeks or Egyptians or Sumerians. Very little there about being one with nature, etc. If we go back to tribes, then you will find out that tribes (native Americans) had very distinct ideas of territories when it came to fishing and gathering (particularly along the California coast.) They believed in respect for other life forms, but there was nothing that prevented them from overfishing or overhunting.

These same humans in Europe hunted the cave bear to extinction because of the "cave bear" religion (they worshipped the bear.)

They didn't know about a world. When things got bad where they lived, they moved on. As far as they knew, there was no end to the world.


There are theory's that a ancient nuke war occurred on Earth in the distant past as discussed here Link on ATS


Actually, that's based on some unrelated stuff, fabricated reports, and a huge chunk of fabricated text (it's not in the Mahabarata.) The meteor that caused the glass HAS been found in the Sahara. Vagabond gave the correct explainations in the thread... he's pretty "up" on these things and isn't the sort to read a website and automatically believe what's there.


I believe the world embraced paganism after this event both to heal the planet and the people who survived. This is also why I believe we are not taught about this past advanced civilization...If we understand our past we are less likely to repeat it.

We actually know a lot about the history of religion on the Earth. You might find it interesting to read the Wikipedia articles about it. Many people assume that if they don't know something, then the rest of humanity also don't know about it.

And remember, you're only seeing the world through the view of someone who was taught Christianity. Those who grew up under different faiths have quite a different view of things.

...anyway, check out some of the topics on Wikipedia. You'll be astonished at how much you were NOT taught (we knew this stuff but didn't teach it because the Establishment would get after us or because the kids were inattentive/restless, etc, etc.)



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Byrd,

You are still blinding them with science, eh? Blind on girl!

Ain't been around for some time now. Sorry about that.

I miss this place. But the changes made here cause my antique dial-up system to freeze up so much I just can't take it.

I've seen you at Ma'at, though.

Harte



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I know what you mean with this, a few months back 12 hours of history dissappeared, although this could have been because of the lack of food and water and copious alcoholic consumption at a friends party



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
OzWeatherman-

I believe the minimum requirement, around here,

is to post something which contributes, to the discussion,

and Then , make a joke. ( if you must ).

I see that you're a relatively, new member, so just some friendly

advice headed your way , this time.

Please try to stay on topic in the future.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join