Past Civilisations - Convince me WHY they didn't exist

I never said it was wrong
but as we have always had a moon it was a pretty pointless documentary

whats next

"if we had no sun"
"if we had no food"
"if we had no planet"
"if we had no oxygen"
or my favourite
"if we had no common sense"

I have 1 theory.

Lets say these advanced civilizations excisted. Well then what happened to them, some smug scientist will ask. The answer is quite simple. With high technology comes power and with power comes the desire for more power.

Mu, Osirions, Atlantis...lets say they all excisted at the same point in time all with high technology...atomic weapons, flight, etc....The would be in competition for land and war would be inevitable.

In libya there is desert glass that is near impossible to make. I'm sure some of you know of it. The thing about this glass is that it was found at the test site for the first atomic bomb dropped by america in the 1940's.

What i'm getting at is that this glass can only be made by something like a nuclear explosion. So in theory if three of the most powerful civilizations in earths history were at war it is highly probable that they destroyed themselves.

On top of that why would "modern" scientist admit to such high technology from people commonly thought of as barbaric and idiotic. It would make us seem like five year olds coloring outside the lines.

First thing is how long ago are we talking? How long would it need to be to wipe all evidence of their advancement?

What kind of advancement are we talking here? It is obvious that advancement is not based on technology or there should be evidence.

Does anyone think it is possible for the human race to have advanced in extremely different ways? We would almost seem that we would need biological and physical differences too for this to have happen.

When you look at our advancement today it is based on the ability to communicate across billions of people. How does one suggest the advancement of a civilization that is very low in population without the ability that we have today to communication.

A painting on a wall of an aircraft is still just a painting on a wall. Where is the proof of any advance thought processes?

Originally posted by fuzzy0087
In libya there is desert glass that is near impossible to make. I'm sure some of you know of it. The thing about this glass is that it was found at the test site for the first atomic bomb dropped by america in the 1940's.

The Libyan desert glass can be explained by the mid-atmospheric explosion of a foreign body over the Sahara. A crater evidencing this very same meteoric explosion was found (finally) two years ago in the area.

Meteors often explode over land rather than making it all the way to the surface. Such an explosion can result in smaller craters or no crater at all.

Harte

Originally posted by fuzzy0087
Mu, Osirions, Atlantis...lets say they all excisted at the same point in time all with high technology...atomic weapons, flight, etc....The would be in competition for land and war would be inevitable.

But, that's the thing. There where no competition for land because none of these civilizations where reputedly worldwide: quite the contrary. Many are supposed to be very small. At best, they had land but doesnt seem to have used it. Atlantis supposedly had control over most of Europe and northern Africa (think Roman Empire). Yet there is nothing left. Not a trace. Absolutely nada. If there was a competition for land, then all that area should have been heavily populated with millions upon millions of Atlanteans. How many nuclear bombs would be required to totally wipe this out, not leaving any trace? Alot. Are there any evidence of a massive worldwide nuclear war? None.

Uh, well I shouldnt bother. I'm certain the response would be "but what if there was a worldwide cataclysm that somehow flipped the land 180 degrees upside-down and made ancient civilizations disappear from time X to time Y without leaving a single trace! Wow the possibility that we will never find out because we will never find any evidence!".

Originally posted by merka
Uh, well I shouldnt bother. I'm certain the response would be "but what if there was a worldwide cataclysm that somehow flipped the land 180 degrees upside-down and made ancient civilizations disappear from time X to time Y without leaving a single trace! Wow the possibility that we will never find out because we will never find any evidence!".

Merka,

Maybe they were all "raptured" by their version of the creator, who then cleared the Earth of all evidence, stuck a bunch of fossils into rock formations and then ran off laughing up his sleeve.

Harte

Why do we assume that advance civilizations of the past used nuclear bombs? Why do we assume that we currently possess the same technology they had?

It's interesting that so many people state 'they could never have had that many nukes wipe themselves out' but who's to say there were nukes?

I would bet that they had other types of weapons which im sure could cause chaos on a vast scale.

And explaining the Lybian desert glass away by saying that it was a mid-atmosphere explosion which left a crater therefore it could only be a nuke is ludicrous! How do we know that?

Yes, it could be a meteor but there is no way of knowing if it actually was. Does that makes sense?

Everyone always goes on about how little we know about past civilizations yet always have explanations for things we dont know. Whose to say that mid-air explosion wasn't some kind of weapon?

IT cant be discounted coz we just dont know.

Originally posted by Harte
Merka,

Maybe they were all "raptured" by their version of the creator, who then cleared the Earth of all evidence, stuck a bunch of fossils into rock formations and then ran off laughing up his sleeve.

Harte

Isnt it obvious?

Aliens.

A species with really really really REALLY big hands just scooped up the ground and flipped it over, making dinosaurs up top (like how we can find 300 million year species by just digging!) and ancient civilizations way below (all melted rock by now).

Perfect explanation!!!

Sidenote to srsen: Why not assume it? Nuclear bombs are essentially just really (no I wont repeat the above ) big bombs. And bombs is just really big bundles of black powder. That is the core of weapons technology since a thousand year ago. Did the "ancients" go a totally different route? Perhaps. Perhaps they went beyond it. But the logical step for that, is something that kills people but leave structures (aka "Le Bombe Neutron!"). That would give them their lebensraum... And finished buildings to live in!

Imagine something that's the opposite, destroying only buildings, technology, everything but people is... odd. It would go against the entire idea of land based expansion.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by merka]

I'm actually reading page 2 of this thread at the moment, so please forgive me if what I want to point out might also have been said by someone else, on page 3 or later.... I just didn't want to forget it, whiich I might have done if I read the whole thread before posting - one downside to getting old.. hehe

Anyway, when reading the first two pages, one thing jumped out and slapped me across the face wth a wet fish.

A few of you have consistently pointed out that there is no evidence (only some which is circumstantial) for the existance of an older advanced civilization, prior to the the currently accepted earliest civilizations... I'm referring, of course to accepted by mainstream archeology.

At least one of you who has pointed this out has also admitted that there are a certain number of 'anomalies' which have been labelled as such. THey don't fit, they are anomolies, and that's what they remain.

So... let me get this straight.

You loudly thump the drum and proudly proclaim that there is no evidence for ancient 'super' civilizations, and then proudly admit that anything that doesn't fit get's labelled 'anomaly' and ignored cause 'it don't fit mate'

Erm... that smacks to me of cooking the books...lol

You can't say there's no evidence for something, then regard as evidence only stuff that fits your preconception. That's just plain silly!

Surely, if things are discovered that don't fit with our present understanding of something, it is better to accept that your understanding of that something might be flawed... rather than ignore what you've discovered because it messes with the comfortable symetry and familiarity of what you believe to be true?

Anyway, just a thought ... moving on to page 3 now

reply to post by srsen


First off, there are no direct artifacts from those civilizations. It would be different if we had some device or writing from Mu, however to my knowledge we don't.

The first civilizations sprung up after we stopped migrating and formed farming communities. All the other trappings of civilization followed that, not all at once.

Since you are the arguing for a belief without physical evidence, the vast burden of proof is on you to support your claim, not vice versa. I don't get how you get the right to twist that around. I await your proof.

Edit-Sorry didn't realize there were 10 pages already.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 9-2-2008 by pavil]

Originally posted by Dagar
So... let me get this straight.

You loudly thump the drum and proudly proclaim that there is no evidence for ancient 'super' civilizations, and then proudly admit that anything that doesn't fit get's labelled 'anomaly' and ignored cause 'it don't fit mate'

Yes, that's the idea.

Unfortunetly, mainstream science require more finding an "anomaly" and starting to wildly speculate on ancient super civilizations.

Plus you'd have to define your "anomalies": many of them (or all) show no indication of any super civilization. If we find a 10,000 year old huge battle tank weighing in at 800 tonnes that still got unexploded plasma based shells in its hull, then I'd happily admit there's been an ancient super civilization.

reply to post by merka


And of course a mainstream archeology professor will happily give up his tenure by stating that he did in fact have it wrong and starve or have to work some crap job.
Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttt

Originally posted by merka


Unfortunetly, mainstream science require more finding an "anomaly" and starting to wildly speculate on ancient super civilizations.

Of course it does .... The scientist shunts everything that doesn't fit the paradigm to one side, and grimly hangs on to said paradigm until the accumulation of everything he's shunted to one side gets to the point that it collapses and buries him completely.

At that point up pops his little head, blows out a load of dust, and exclaims 'I knew that all along... I was merely testing you!'

Incidently... speculation is good... Look what it did for Einstein



[edit on 9/2/2008 by Dagar]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

I fail to see how that argument apply.

If they get thrown out, its probably because they are better fictional writers than archeologists. Hey, maybe they'll even make better money that way.

Regarding Einstein, mathematical theories are great because they can *always* be contested by people smarter than the guys before... Well, until they cant anymore. How does someone contest the idea of an ancient super civilization if one very imaginative fellow would write about it? Speculation is good... And so is fiction.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by merka

 

And of course a mainstream archeology professor will happily give up his tenure by stating that he did in fact have it wrong and starve or have to work some crap job.
Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttt

You don't seem to understand the term "tenure" and why it exists, or even what it means - deny ignorance is the motto of this board so I'll come out of lurker mode just this once:

from wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...

Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole might favor "safe" lines of inquiry. Tenure makes original ideas more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions.

Having read the above - do you realize that you plain wrong?

Famous scientists are famous because they discover new things, not support the status quo - that is a fact.

Why all this speculation about the mind set and motive of the scholars who actually study ancient civilizations? Since they don't support the idea (based on the existing evidence) of unknown advanced, super or any other kind of civilizations. This, from the firnge point of view must be, must be because of;

A vast evil conspiracy

The incompetence and evil inability of said scholars to see the truth

Deliberate suppression of knowledge (not part of exterior conspiracy but one by the scholars themselves)

Of course the reality is the lack of evidence for same. it is very, very sad that fringe believers, lacking the knowledge of the scholars must try to hide the lack of evidence - not behind the lack of evidence itself but by creating an imaginary world were the evidence exists and only that naughty scholars keep it from getting out.

Back to lurking

Originally posted by Hanslune


A vast evil conspiracy

The incompetence and evil inability of said scholars to see the truth

Deliberate suppression of knowledge (not part of exterior conspiracy but one by the scholars themselves)

Of course the reality is the lack of evidence for same. it is very, very sad that fringe believers, lacking the knowledge of the scholars must try to hide the lack of evidence - not behind the lack of evidence itself but by creating an imaginary world were the evidence exists and only that naughty scholars keep it from getting out.

Back to lurking

I'm not sure about the 'vast evil conspiracy' ... but as for the rest of the above comment, I suggest you read this post by Jakyll on the 4th page of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Suppression, for whatever the reason, can and DOES happen.

reply to post by Hanslune



Methinks the sir doth protest a bit much.
Funny how one little tongue in cheek comment can set some people off.



Anyrate. Hate to tell you but a professor that specialises and teaches a "obsolete" theory (or even a unpopular one). Is out of a job.

If you want to give science an almost holy aura go right ahead.
Some of us don't and prefer to look past the shiny labels mankind likes to put on everything and see the real crap underneath. Which there is a fair amount under any active we like to put a shiny label on.
Something about buttholes, opinions, and all them stinking comes to mind.

oh. And you assumed a bit much off of one short statement huh?

howdy

oh. And you assumed a bit much off of one short statement huh?

My assumption is that the person making the comment about tenure knew nothing about what tenure was and was making an uninformed statement, I provide information to correct that, plus an opinion of why people may make such uninformed opinions.

Anyrate. Hate to tell you but a professor that specialises and teaches a "obsolete" theory (or even a unpopular one). Is out of a job.

Sorry but that is complete nonsense. Lets say they discover Atlantis at the Azores - are you actually saying they'll fire all the existing archaeology professors? Perhaps you can give us an example of this happening? I can assure you that teachers of marxist economics are still going strong - except in the former Soviet nations - despite the theory being "obsolete".

If you want to give science an almost holy aura go right ahead.

Sorry again you're making a strawman statement, no such statement was made - I simply corrected an obvious misunderstanding of what tenure is -everything else you are just making up

Some of us don't and prefer to look past the shiny labels mankind likes to put on everything and see the real crap underneath. Which there is a fair amount under any active we like to put a shiny label on.

Again making up stuff and ranting about it. How about looking at the known facts and speculating from there? Or if you don't like the facts you can go and fantasting about an alternative world.

"I'm not sure about the 'vast evil conspiracy' ... but as for the rest of the above comment, I suggest you read this post by Jakyll on the 4th page of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com... "

Suppression, for whatever the reason, can and DOES happen.

Howdy, thanks for the link

Suppress does occur especially in totalitarian nations and those having a special religious reason. However these "suprressions" are well known and they have limited range and are protested against.

What is implied by "mainstream fringe" LOL is that there is a universal conspiracy, in all nations by all scholars to suppress evidence.

That is not the case.

Some examples of localized suppression:

Mormon church trying to prove native Americans were from the twelve tribes

Soviet doctrine that all early cultures were "communistic"

A movement Mesoamerican archaeology to suppor the idea that the Mayans were "peaceful" "The Thompson cult"

Japanese declining to excavate the earliest Imperial mounds (as they would most probably show that the emperor originally came from Korea).

If I don't respond its because I rarely have time- if you have important point sent it to my local message here and when I check in I'll address it

regards