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.

 

Past Civilisations - Convince me WHY they didn't exist

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

So srsen are you saying you can provide evidence that the Piri Reis map is authentic - please show it, all evidence points to it being fully accepted in our world view. It became 'infamous' because of the deliberate lying of fringe writers.

It must be nice to live in a world unfettered by reality


Isn't the 'fact' that it shows Antarctica as it is under the ice (which was only discovered recently with sattelites) enough to make it authentic?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
but it doesn't show that at all
thats just what pseudohistorians desperate for any evidence have claimed.

ask yourself what use a map of antartica would be to a turkish admiral who never sailed outside the med ?


now show me where this


is depicted on this




[edit on 18-11-2007 by kerkinana walsky]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
One possible reason for 'monsters' was fossils. Ancients were very familar with skeletons (butchering prey and finding the remains of dead animals and would see fossils of megafauna and dinosaurs.

Seeing a massive femur would get their imaginations going.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
www.world-mysteries.com... claims otherwise:


The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.


It does not show the entire Antarctica, just the Northern coast. The fact that it actually shows someting there, never mind if it resembles Antarctica or not, is enough to convince me.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   
it has an elephant on the bit thats supposed to be antartica
haha



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 


I've never been able to figure out how Ohlmeyer came to that conclusion. One of those great unsolved mysteries I guess. Unless, he never really looked at it?

But if you accept his opinion, and dismiss everyone elses, then I did hope no-one ever tells you that drinking hemlock is good for you


What is interesting about the Piri Re'is map is that it appears to depict fairly accurately the opening to the Straits of Magellan (of course, that's not the case if you think it shows Antarctica joined directly to Brazil
)



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Greetings Hanslune

How do you explain how a farmer could make such an elaborate hoax with little to no knowledge of most of the subject matter depicted on the stones?



it has an elephant on the bit thats supposed to be antartica


Antartica was not always covered in ice



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JadePhoenix


Antartica was not always covered in ice


thats true it was ice free 40,000 years ago

unfortunately this means that the claim that any map depicts this was rubbish. because there simply wasn't anyone around making maps at that point. thats even if you do believe in Atlantis which was 10,000bce



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Howdy all

Ica stones pictures were copied from magazines and newspapers. There is no evidence of any kind that they are old, all the evidence points to their modern creation.

Piri Reis, the northern coast line is incorrect- by several thousand miles and doesn't match the profile -above water or below water- of the antarctic peninsula. What that line is probably a survey of the SA coast line misapplied by the Turkish Admiral.

If you look to the north around the Carribean you'll see what Columbus and a few others thought the carribean island looked like - of course they had it wrong - but if it was 40000 years ago why is Europe and Med - protrayed correctly?



This is the Piri Reis map displayed over a modern map - note the errors around the Carribean and antarctica

The outline is purple is the Piri Reis map

[edit on 19/11/07 by Hanslune]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I dunno about a few isolated cities here and there. But I do know that if in the past the earth was populated with civilization similar to what it is today, there would be alot more evidence. Dinosaur fossils are found all the time...I think it'd be ridiculous to think that if in the future, we're all wiped out and a new civilization arises, archeologists will not find ample evidence of New York City, etc.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by 27jd]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Who’s to say that we have not found the evidence of a far older civilization already?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JadePhoenix
Who’s to say that we have not found the evidence of a far older civilization already?


What we're looking for is some kind of consistency that would enable us to define it. A common thing archeologists use is pottery sherds. You get a bunch that look similar, and you can pretty much figure that they're all used by a group of the same people. You give them a name, and then you can use that name to associate other things with them.

Sure, there may be stray bits and pieces of an older civilization lying around, but there's not enough of it, or it isn't consistent enough, for us to say, "Okay, the people of 'Atlantis' used this kind of clay pot with this kind of design and cross-hatching around the handles." It could be that we just haven't found enough evidence of it, or, just as likely, the evidence doesn't exist. Obviously, if the evidence is missing, we wouldn't know it, or even know what to look for.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Greetings Nohup

Considering that the sea level has risen 130 meters (400 ft) since the last ice age, that might be a good place to search for evidence.


Yonaguni is a small island south-west of Okinawa in the Japanese archipelago. In 1988, scuba divers led by Kihachiro Aratake discovered an enormous stone structure on the seabed off the coast of Yonaguni.



A team of Canadian and Cuban researchers have discovered the remains of what may be a 6,000-year-old city submerged in deep ocean waters off the western coast of Cuba.


As far as Atlantis is concerned I would have to say if it did exsist in the middle of the ocean as in the ledgend there would be some evidence of a land mass somewhere in the middle of the atlantic ocean on the ocean floor.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

Originally posted by JadePhoenix


Antartica was not always covered in ice


thats true it was ice free 40,000 years ago

unfortunately this means that the claim that any map depicts this was rubbish. because there simply wasn't anyone around making maps at that point. thats even if you do believe in Atlantis which was 10,000bce



You added an extra zero there brother (sister?) . I've read in a few places that Antarctica was icefree 4,000 years ago.

Personally I believe Antarctica was icefree and was in the middle of where the Atlantic Ocean is now and there was life on it. I'm not saying it was 'Atlantis' though.


It is quite possible that an 'advanced' civilization (like ancient Rome and Greece were advanced civilizations) did not travel far from their homeland. The people of Africa never went anywhere and America was only 'discovered' in 1492 or thereabouts, i.e a few thousand years of civilisation before anyone really went anywhere.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Howdy Lannock

The antarctic coasts may have been ice free in particular the peninsula but the main area has been under deep ice for hundreds of thousands of years. I believe 800,000 years

Ice cores


Ruins of a destroyed NY would remain detectable to an archaeologist with todays level of training up to the point the area was subducted under a continent, ie hundreds of millions of years from now.

Although it is possible a more advanced civilization existed it is also improbable that we would not have detected some sign of it-if it existed within a few hundred thousands of years - if you start going back millions it get less chancy. The theory we'd miss a recent world wide civilization with our level of technology is difficult to image.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

Originally posted by JadePhoenix


Antartica was not always covered in ice


thats true it was ice free 40,000 years ago


Actually, more like 4,000,000
There is some evidence that the coastal fringes at least were warmer and ice free during the Pliocene. After that, ice, ice, ice ...... Although there's less there now than for much of the past 100,000 years



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Sorry Lannock

I failed to address your other comments

The Vikings got to the new world before Columbus - but way, way after the native Americans. Lots of people were sailing around, however deep sea technology remained limited in the African-Med-Europe area until much later in history. Later the Polynesians and Indonesians made spectacular voyages - we know that because they left traces just like the Vikings.

If any other travellers did travel around they failed to make an impact on the native culture/we have failed to find evidence of their voyage



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
ok so what we're looking for is a lost advanced civilisation that didn't have a global trade network, didn't use pottery, didn't have any shipping was missed by everyone else around at the time, had no living survivors and which has left no record at all in the stratiography of known civilisations.

I propose we call this the Vanesco culture




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
They were nicknamed the "ground sheet" people as they always lived on top of biodegradeable organic ground sheets and they never made a fire, buried their dead, disturbed the soil, made a stone tool or dug up any materials.

True recyclers!



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Ruins of a destroyed NY would remain detectable to an archaeologist with todays level of training up to the point the area was subducted under a continent, ie hundreds of millions of years from now.


Exactly what I was saying. Ancient civilizations like Rome and such were made largely of stone and such to my knowledge. Not huge skyscrapers of steel, freeways, etc. If civilization existed at a level even close to now, it would be very easy to find it, NY won't biodegrade.




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join