So I know what I'm inviting in here but it's reached a point where I can't bear it anymore.

I want someone, anyone to explain this to me:

Why are past civilisations, such as Atlantis and Mu, so damn impossible according to so many of us?

There is so much evidence out there which shows that man was around MUCH earlier than our current science suggests and one-day, when I have a week or two, I will compile them all into one super-thread.

But until then it seems as though we have been successfully brainwashed to believe that we are it! Nothing else but us! Ever. In the whole of Earth's history. Just us.

THAT IS RIDICULOUS!

How the heck did our original civilisations in Babylon just start out of nowhere if not influenced by existing civilisations? How did they learn language, culture, arts and law? How did they just suddenly know how to do all this?

I mean if there had been NO ruins found and NO anomalous artefacts discovered then I could maybe believe that we are Earth's first civilisation - BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE!

Everyone loves to quote their favourite high school science teacher but no-one is willing to look at some real evidence and consider that we could have lived like this once before and were destroyed somehow.

You know what, believing that we are Earth's first global civilisation sounds about as ignorant, egotistical and ignorant (did I say ignorant?) as someone saying there is no other life in the universe.


So here's the chance, make a fool out of me - prove that we are the first.

How the heck did our original civilisations in Babylon just start out of nowhere if not influenced by existing civilisations? How did they learn language, culture, arts and law? How did they just suddenly know how to do all this?

Well, if you believe Zecharia Sitchin, then extraterrestrial visitation explains it. I'm not one who's an adherent of Sitchin's work, I'm just saying this is one scenario.

Even if there were ancient advanced civilizations, I've always thought they were destroyed by cataclysms and lost all or most of their knowledge. That's why during this current epic of history we started out as hunter/gatherers. Nearly everything was wiped out from the previous technological civilization, and we went back to square one.

Can you to clarify your question ?

Are you asking for proof atlantis didn't exist, or proof that no other civilizations existed prior to the sumerians ?

please also define civilization

are you asking about civilizations with written language, or city states, or what ?

Originally posted by srsen
There is so much evidence out there which shows that man was around MUCH earlier than our current science suggests...

Well, there's a lot of suggestive evidence, but just like with UFOs, there's nothing that is absolutely definitive and incontrovertible. There's always room for debate. There's always one expert's opinion that doesn't concur with another expert's opinion.

Not being any kind of expert, I'm not in a position to say who is right or wrong, although I tend to think that professional archeologist have a bit of an advantage over folks who are armchair interpreters. I also think that if civilized man has been around a lot longer than people say, the evidence would be a lot more obvious and less subject to interpretation.

But that's just me. I like the idea of being more hesitant to go all out and support an unestablished theory, because the bunk and nonsense is exciting, and it's easy for your excitement about an idea to cloud your mind to the more mundane reality. Super civilizations like Atlantis are cool and exciting. Much more than the dull reality of a few boring mud hut cities in Iraq or Kasimir.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Even if there were ancient advanced civilizations, I've always thought they were destroyed by cataclysms and lost all or most of their knowledge. That's why during this current epic of history we started out as hunter/gatherers. Nearly everything was wiped out from the previous technological civilization, and we went back to square one.

Makes sense to me mate. And this is kind of my point - what is so hard to believe about that?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Can you to clarify your question ?

Are you asking for proof atlantis didn't exist, or proof that no other civilizations existed prior to the sumerians ?

please also define civilization

are you asking about civilizations with written language, or city states, or what ?

What I'm getting at is that every time a thread starts up discussing potential past civilisations the majority of posters end up being those who think we are all ridiculous for believing such an insane notion as past civilisations.

Its ends up being as if we are all nuts for looking at the numerous ruins scattered around the world and also nuts for giving any credence to many country's creation epics which expressly described past 'motherlands' which sunk into the sea millennia ago.

But I suppose what I mean by civilisation is an organised, globally aware, spiritually and/or technologically advanced culture with an understanding of written and spoken language as well as buildings/structures, agriculture, laws and communities.

I firmly believe that these types of cultures have thrived and died in our past.

So I suppose I want proof that Sumeria was the first and no civilisation existed before that - a notion I find impossible to fathom.

I realise now that it matters not what us believers in past civilisations say - if it's not in a text book then it isn’t true

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, there's a lot of suggestive evidence, but just like with UFOs, there's nothing that is absolutely definitive and incontrovertible. There's always room for debate. There's always one expert's opinion that doesn't concur with another expert's opinion.

Spot on. There is A LOT of suggestive evidence, but you know what, many are happy to accept suggestive evidence in other areas and consider it fact. Truth starts first as suggestive evidence.

Look at the planets make-up. We almost ALL accept that the earth is ball of magma with a crust, mantle, etc - but have we EVER drilled down deep enough to prove it? Yeah sure, we have theories and maths that work in its favour but theories and maths also work in favour of a Hollow Earth (but let's not go there in this thread please).

Scientist also all believed and "proved" that the Earth was the center of the Universe - what happened there?

Originally posted by Nohup
I tend to think that professional archeologist have a bit of an advantage over folks who are armchair interpreters. I also think that if civilized man has been around a lot longer than people say, the evidence would be a lot more obvious and less subject to interpretation.

Its not just the armchair interpreters though who support past civilisations. Its authors, archaeologists, researchers, scholars, university professors and so on. But they all get labelled crackpots and ignored because they contravene the text books.

Originally posted by Nohup
…bunk and nonsense is exciting, and it's easy for your excitement about an idea to cloud your mind to the more mundane reality. Super civilizations like Atlantis are cool and exciting. Much more than the dull reality of a few boring mud hut cities in Iraq or Kasimir.

You're absolutely correct - Atlantis, Mu and other past civilisations are amazingly exciting and interesting topics. Yes it is VERY easy to get carried away and want something to be true so badly that you'll believe anything.

But personally, that's not what I'm about. I'm about looking behind the veil of BS they present us everyday and find the real truth. I like to consider why such truths would be hidden from us.

Look at the whole Larry King UFO thing and the press conference that was just held - ten years ago, ANYONE talking about such things was considered an INSTANT nutter. Larry King would NEVER have been taken seriously again - however now, we are on the verge of full-on UFO acceptance. I mean its becoming mainstream, but we were told that is was ridiculous. Debunkers would have a field day with us in the past - but now who looks the fool? That fat bloody debunker tool who appeared on Larry King that’s who!!

My point? What is blasphemous bad science one-day, is revolutionary truth the next.


[edit on 12-11-2007 by srsen]

Actually you can see the evolution of written language. I can recall the oldest drawing in the world with sounds. Was made by aborigines. Too depict sound they drew shaky lines. The next step was symbols. These can be found aswell in the first settlements. These symbols develop futher by getting more abstract into basically written language for the sumerians and to a lesser extend the egyptians. This all abstracted even futher into the modern alphabet.

Art is something that will inherently suddenly appear but the oldest primitive art is 10000 years old iirc. This developed futher into stuff like thse old little mother goddess statues or cave paintings.

Law basically developed from old tribal rules.

Culture is fairly simple. Everything not genetic that you lean is culture. So basically there are cultures since that came. One could argue that some animals also have cultures. Some killer whales for example have a slightly different language than other's.

As you can see that all the development has seen a gradual evolution that has been found that there is no reason for atlantis. However if suddenly out of nothing writing appeared and that there was no process of symbolisication like what happened. Then i would think that there was a great ancient civilization that influenced modern civilizations.

Ofcourse its possible that there was a great ancient civilization that just vanished without influencing anyone else that didnt vanish themselves. However we would have to put a limit on this.

1. most likely this civilzation wouldnt be totally eradicated.
2. If they developed techniques like steam power then that would leave a trace.
3. The use of metals as tools wouldnt be forgotten as its very much more superior than flint.
4. There is a limit of what you can achieve with flint.

Combined this all makes me believe that the most advanced possible civilization that vanished would be something along the lines of egyptians and sumerians before they made large structures. As large structures are hard to get rid off. Ice age wouldnt explain why they vanished if there were any large structures as the area's which were suitable to develop a civilization like this were ice free.

In the end i think if there was a ancient civilization that predates sumerian or equivalent then we should look at area's that had comparable climates to these civilizations in the ice age. Where could they exist if there werent discovered?

Under the sea ofcourse! This leads to these possible candidates: the black sea, maybe parts of the mediterreanan and near the indian coast. I hear stuff about cuba and the canarian islands and japan but i dont consider these sites serious candidates because: I dont know enough about sealevels near japan and cuba. The canarian islands would still have obvious traces.

Along with anything else you may have read here, you can add the following:

Continental landmasses are composed of Silicon/Aluminum type rocks whereas ocean bottoms are composed of Silicon/Magnesium type rocks. Thats why plate tectonics works. There is NO Silicon/Aluminum type continental crust found anywhere in the Pacific Basin, therefore NO lost continent. One more reason why MU didn't exist.

Atlantis was a story told to Plato by Critias, who heard it from his 90 year old grandfather (also named Critias), who heard it from Dropidas, who heard it from Solon, who heard it from an Egyptian Priest. There is nothing to suggest that anyone was doing anything but passing on an oral tradition. A contemporary example would be your relating a story someone told your Great Great Grandfather word for word without leaving out any detail. It probably does have historical truth in it, i.e. the Santorini explosion, but shouldn't be taken as 100% fact.

The last Ice Age destroyed many cultures along rivers lakes and shorelines that we have only found fleeting examples of, however there is no evidence to call these cultures "Highly Advanced", at least by our standards. To the natives of the area they may very well have been seen as "Highly Advanced". It is a matter of perspective.

The oldest established human, that is HOMO SAPIEN, finds are the finds at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia. They are only about 195,000 years old. Having lived alongside the Neanderthals as well as the megafauna of the times during most of the last few interglacial/glacial periods, Homo Sapiens was limited in where he could go and how safe he and his people would be. Populations could not get very large or he might just go extinct.

The thing about anomalous finds is that they are just that, "ANOMALOUS". Nobody knows for sure what they are, otherwise they wouldn't be called "ANOMALOUS".

Babylon wasn't our original civilization, SUMER was. And they didn't come onto the scene all of a sudden. People lived along the Tigris and Euphrates for thousands of years before eventually settling into what were the first signs of CIVILIZATION.

ok

I think the reason we are so advanced now is this is the longest period between ice ages in recent geologic time, I do think it's reasonable to think there were "budding" civilizations in the past that just didn't get momentum to make it through the ice age

the reason we are so advanced now is because we discovered how to put our ideas down in a solid form known as writing and because civilisation allowed us to multiply so that there were more people thinking those ideas and writing them down. this means that each new generation doesn't have to find out things for itself. It can build on the ideas of the last. Theres a lot to be said for teaching your child how to do things the same as you but thats not really a reliable way to transmit data. at some point one of your offspring is going to be an idiot or someone who just doesn't care.

I would say I agree with syrinx high priest. I also believe there may have been cultures in the past that didn't make it for any number of reasons. What I don't believe in is the pseudo-scientific, HIGHLY ADVANCED civilizations that many want to present as fact. I could just as well claim that the dinosaurs weren't killed off by a comet 65.5 million years ago, but were actually sentient creatures themselves who NUKED themselves into extinction, causing continental drift. Fact is, I don't believe that either.

Ok - loving it guys, thank you.

Learning a few things along the way too.

This is exactly what I wanted.


The one thing that everyone is doing however is refusing to look outside the box.

VERY quick example of what I mean (I'm actually at work and am amazed I've been to post these replies without getting busted!! :lol

Look at Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley. It is approx 5,000 years old right? But what do you guys think about the fact that they have found NINE layers of civilisations buried underneath it?

I'm SURE that this isn't spoken about as much as other information that works into the current mainstream historical worldview.

I mean NINE layers - that’s a lot of civilisations in that one spot. How is that explained keeping within the context of civilisation dating back to 5,000BCE?

And there are so many things like this…

I'm not saying that the science you guys are quoting isn’t thorough. It surely is, but it conveniently leaves out a lot of information which is absolutely vital.

I'll have to come back a bit later though. Think I have pushed my bludging a bit too far today already.

Keep up the good info though

Originally posted by srsen
Spot on. There is A LOT of suggestive evidence, but you know what, many are happy to accept suggestive evidence in other areas and consider it fact.

Well, in my personal opinion, these people are compete idiots. Like the people who look at a magician and accept that just because they think they see something with their own eyes it must be true. They want to believe so much that they're willing to overlook basis arguments against what they want to believe. That's almost the definition of stupidity.

My point? What is blasphemous bad science one-day, is revolutionary truth the next.

Something being blasphemous bad science is not a good indicator of the quality of an argument. Sometimes there's a very good reason why a crap idea is laughed at or ignored. Because it's crap.

Actually multiple layers in Mohenjo Daro is really no big deal. Jericho and Troy, to name a few, also have multiple layers. It just means that these places didn't appear literally overnight, but have a history.

Does science have ALL the answers, NO. That is why they keep looking and occasionally they will be wrong. However, more often than not they are considerally more accurace in their interpretations than any layman/armchair historian/pseudo-scientific researcher. Looking outside the box is all well and good as long as you realize that the "box" is the focalpoint of what is known, not the exception to what you want to believe. Sometimes looking outside the box can be equated with believing in fairies, trolls, ogres and Merlin the Magician. Sorry, I don't.

Originally posted by srsen
VERY quick example of what I mean (I'm actually at work and am amazed I've been to post these replies without getting busted!! :lol

Look at Mohenjo Daro in the Indus Valley. It is approx 5,000 years old right? But what do you guys think about the fact that they have found NINE layers of civilisations buried underneath it?

the nine layers of Mohenjodaro are what has been excavated already, there are not nine more layers still underneath. They are down to the untouched soil now. If you stop right there for just a minute and think about what you just said which amounts to

"in the entirely unexcavated ground beneath the excavated city there are nine more layers yet to be excavated"

like how would you know if it hasn't been excavated


thats not really surprising for a city that was regularly flooded by the Sarasvati river, When that happened it was easier to just build on the new ground level than to excavate what was buried in silt. there are cities in the middle east that have 20 + layers of civilisation.

hows that thinking outside the box now ?

Originally posted by Nohup


Something being blasphemous bad science is not a good indicator of the quality of an argument. Sometimes there's a very good reason why a crap idea is laughed at or ignored. Because it's crap.

"...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. " - Carl Sagan.