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.

 

America Discovered Before Christopher Columbus!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   


There is evidence, albeit a tad week, that the greeks travelled to South America around 3500-5000 BC. I have another thread about the Poseiden Project somewhere here with the links.


I have never heard of this I shall have to do some research on this topic.




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
In elementary school....in the mid 1970s...I was taught that Columbus wasn't the first to reach America. We learned about the Chinese, the Vikings, the Phoenicians, and others.

I am utterly astounded that someone is surprised to find out that Columbus didn't get to America first.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
There is evidence to support the claim that europeans were the first settlers in north america, during the last ice age. Solutrian spear points have been found in north america dating to this period, significantly older than the oldest clovis points. DNA evidence also supports this with some 25% of indigenous americans on the eastern seaboard showing distinct european genetic markers.

Irish folklore also holds that St. Brendan made the voyage across the atlantic centuries before Columbus. Thor Hyerdal proved the voyage could have been made given the boats available at this time.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon
There is evidence, albeit a tad week, that the greeks travelled to South America around 3500-5000 BC. I have another thread about the Poseiden Project somewhere here with the links.


You need to show some evidence of this with some links please because my understanding is that there was no Greek civilization at this time or at least not one that was advanced enough to make that sort of ocean voyages.
At this time in history the Sumerian civilization was only beginning to come into its own, i think you have either got your time line or culture mixed up.

Now if you are thinking of the Phoenician civilization then there is the possibility that they may have had the neccesary skills to make such voyages at around 1800bc (maybe). The Greeks, no way!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JadePhoenix
 


He was the first not to keep it secret. Fishermen from the Basque region of Europe were fishing off the coast of New Foundland for at least a century before Columbus. They kept it secret like any good fisherman does because they want the best fishing for themselves.

The Vikings? Well, the rest of Europe was none too fond of them for a variety of reasons...they weren't gonna waste a whole lot of time talking about a land across the sea with people trying to chop them into chittlins'.

So Columbus was just the most recent one to "discover" it, but one of the first to attempt to exploit it. That's all.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


The Greeks? Are you sure about that? I've never seen anything that gave the Greeks any chance of making a voyage of that magnitude. I'd love to see a source.

Maybe an older greek colony, like Syracuse, could have done it at a later date. That seems a bit too early to me.

Phoenicians maybe...Catheginians maybe...Romans, almost certainly could have done it, various Northern European folks surely could have and did. But none that early.

But maybe I've missed something along the way.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
He was the first not to keep it secret. Fishermen from the Basque region of Europe were fishing off the coast of New Foundland for at least a century before Columbus. They kept it secret like any good fisherman does because they want the best fishing for themselves.

The Vikings? Well, the rest of Europe was none too fond of them for a variety of reasons...they weren't gonna waste a whole lot of time talking about a land across the sea with people trying to chop them into chittlins'.

First point: Why on earth would fishermen from Europe go to America to fish? The fish would be rotten before they even got back! Its not like its a trip for an hour. Hell, the food supply needed would far outweigh the fish they catch!

Second point: The reason we know Vikings got to America is because of written record (the possible ground sites where discovered because of this). So yeah they wasted quite alot of time talking about a land across the sea (including Greenland).



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


These were not just little one or two man boats. These were, for the time, rather large ships that had a multiple number of small dory's that worked off of the ship. The Atlantic Cod were salted and preserved almost imeadiately. Most fish caught anywhere at that time were immeadiately salted.

You have to remember that the fishing grounds off of New Foundland were, for centuries, the richest fishing grounds in the Atlantic, maybe the world. The fishermen go where the fishing is best.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by seagull]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Yes they did spend alot of time talking about "Greenland" etc..., but amongst themselves for the most part. The rest of Europe were victims waiting to be assaulted in the eyes of many Norsemen. Only rumours, if that, would have reached more southerly. Again, secrets.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 

Having stories amongst themselves and keeping a secret is hardly the same thing. Other Europeans didnt have that much insight into Viking stories because they where, for some odd reason, other Europeans and not Vikings.

Its about as strange as a Viking not knowing [insert any country here] folklore thus the [insert people of said country here] must have kept it "secret".

[edit on 6-1-2008 by merka]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Sorry for my slow response on the thread. It was my weekend, and I posted right berfore I headed out of work.

Original Thread discussion

Poseidon Group Website

As I said, the evidence is rather weak, but it is interesting. The myth of Jason was told generation after generation as oral history. Many myths were. However, stuff that people thought were fictional ended up being real. Anyway, let me know what you think.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TLomon
As I said, the evidence is rather weak, but it is interesting. The myth of Jason was told generation after generation as oral history. Many myths were. However, stuff that people thought were fictional ended up being real. Anyway, let me know what you think.

What do you mean? The myth of Jason is still that, a myth. And if it has "ended up being real", we're only talking a small part of it that scientist would admit to being real: the fact a guy named Jason went on a journey.

Which is why I question for example these bask people fishing off the coast of America. Do they have tales of great fishing grounds? Probably. Where they good sailers? Most likely. Would they exaggerate the fact they went to strange lands "across the sea" to fish in their secret happy place when they just went further down the coasts than your "average" fisher? Certainly.

So what I think: Many parts of myths that people thought were fictional has ended up "real" (well as real as they are supposed to be). Troy? Sure it could have been a city. The King Arthur story? Its been speculated to have roots in Spain. The saga of Beowulf? Oh dear that's such a mix of real events and fiction. The key part here is that everything WOW and AWESOME and FANTASTIC BEYOND BELIEF is still considered myth and fiction.

One may notice that I left out Atlantis in this, but this is exactly the reason why I think it in particular is futile to argue. The Atlantis story is nothing like the myths above, because it is utterly focused on this "Atlantis". Its nearly impossible to go in and say "oh that may be based on reality" or "that may be inspired by this" because of its narrow scope. Sure the Greek Gods "existed". Pillars Of Hercules probably was a landmark at the time of Plato. But the rest completely live or die with the concept of "Atlantis". Think on it. Atlantis is supposed to be a country spanning a VAAAAST area, but did Plato ever name any other city, area, mountain, whatever?

Sigh I rant to much.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I believe myths had a basis in fact at one time. We are finding archeological finds based on tracking said myths. As you brought it up, Troy is a recent example. How many more finds will we be making?

Taking a look at Troy... It was built 3,000 BC, rebuilt 8 additional times. Yet, even after all of that, we only managed to locate it in 2001? Just because we investigate something that is thought to be a myth does not make it fantasy. The myth had to have an origin somewhere. We are finding out more and more by tracking myths to their original roots.

Wikipedia Entry on Troy

I don't recall mentioning Atlantis, but rather a specific project that is (was) attempting to duplicate historical nautical journeys. Have you reviewed the site? There is a very good comparison of the myth landmarks to physical landmarks on their journey. However, since you brought it up, I personally don't believe Atlantis was a continent, but rather a island in the Med. Sea. I don't see how Atlantis has any bearing on who discovered America though.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 

I was refering to the myth vs real aspect, not the really this specific topic. And while Troy is supposedly real (do we *KNOW 110%* its really Troy they found???) and is a key part of the Illiad, its not just about the city. Its also about the war and the Gods part in it... They even take form on the battlefield and fight, including become wounded. Do you think this is real too? All the characters, where they really there? Do we know that king Priam existed, or could have been a made up name? Obviously a city had a king/ruler at the time.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
When a historical event happens, you have the people at ground 0 who experienced it. The story spreads to other towns, cities, etc. "Heh, our local hero John Smith must have been part of that too", and the myth evolves. The further back we approach the original source for a myth, the closer to the truth we come.

History is a puzzle. It is a question of finding evidence, both written and physical in nature, and putting it together. Why is it you seem to shy away from even opening the box? No one knows what happened 5000 years ago, but through investigating the clues left behind, we can get a pretty good grasp.

The myth of Jason is confusing, because some authors say he went west, and some say he went east. However, if you go back to the original sources these authors obtained their references from, it is apparent they combined two different stories causing the confusion in (relatively) recent versions.

Cover the events themselves. Huge waves like moutains and contrary winds don't happen with inland seas. Then, the description of "the floating islands". This strangely describes the Sargasso sea, which is in the Atlantic. Even a natural phenomenon which could be the origin of "the clashing rocks" was found near Haiti.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Apologies here...but I didn't follow that at all. It made no sence to me. Could you try again, please? I'm not bein' an ass, I'm honestly a bit dense this morning...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by feoil
There is evidence to support the claim that europeans were the first settlers in north america, during the last ice age. Solutrian spear points have been found in north america dating to this period, significantly older than the oldest clovis points.


No, repeat, NO, Soultrean points have ever been found ANYWHERE in the Western hemisphere.

It appears that people here are willing to fabricate "facts" so that they may have something to say.

Harte



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by merka
 


Apologies here...but I didn't follow that at all. It made no sence to me. Could you try again, please? I'm not bein' an ass, I'm honestly a bit dense this morning...

You'd have to say what exactly...

But this is going slightly too far offtopic anyway so I'm not sure I'll bother re-explaining.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
How would the Dutch and Portuguese sailors have known that inland Australia is an arid, barren, wasteland?



*Dutch Captain to passenger bound for Batavia when asked why no settlement on New Holland*

"Good Lord, man, just take a look at that. Do you think there's any water anywhere inside THAT coastline?..."

*Passenger in reply*

"Yes, I suppose it does look a little dry. Could be a mite difficult growing tulips there..."

Remember, they only sighted the north-west coast and sailed along it, think Broome...


I think you'll find the Portuguese sailed down the East Coast of Australia, they would not have thought that what they were seeing was an arid, barren, wasteland!


Maybe, just MAYBE, the Portuguese made it down the east coast.

Yes, there have long been reports about a Protuguese map. Problem: as remembered/reproduced that map puts Victoria's eastern-most point more than 300 nm FURTHER east on a huge peninsula. BIGGER problem: the library containing original map was destroyed by earthquake a couple of hundred years ago.

The first difficulty can be explained by the process of carelessly transferring a globe-drawn map onto a flat sheet. Remember, this is pre-Mercator.

The second means we have no original, primary documentary evidence and you know how historians LOVE bits of paper. However, we do have Portuguese cannon, but they're all in Perth's territorial waters.

But my point stands about credit going to the nation who settles/exploits...

We've got Dirk Hartog's plate that he left in Kakadu, but the reason JC gets the credit is that he just may have been the best navigator/cartographer in the Royal Navy (which goes a long way to making you the best in the world) and he had Joseph Banks along and between Cook's map and Banks' journal and actual flora/fauna, the Poms had all the proof they needed terra australis was fit for human habitation (not to mention the reports of actual humans living there...).

[edit on 7-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
have you ever heard of the egyptian "coc aine mummies"

www.thothweb.com...
www.faculty.ucr.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join