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.

 

Was Pre-Flood (anti-diluvian) man capable of Air Travel?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nexusmagazine
 





there are plenty of scientists specialising in these areas


Got any names, or am I supposed to take your word for it?




One ground-breaking technique to date when rocks were carved by ancient man was applied to Stonehenge a decade or so ago.


Evidently it wasn't too ground-breaking, it apparently failed.




all the world's experts back in Europe said that such an animal was impossible, and it was considered by everyone as a hoax.


Yeah, 200 years ago. Might want to flip your calendar. It's the 21st century.

Just a note: I find your assurances irrelevant. Seems you see a conspiracy everywhere you look. Some would call that paranoia.

cormac




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Howdy Duncan

So you have no non-consensus reality, but you mock the consenus version of reality? How odd. Or is this the old ploy "if I never present an opinon or evidence I can never be shown to be wrong", thingy.

Ah so you deny you believe in a world wide conspiracy?



Umm - where do I say anything like this? I haven't even hinted at any world wide conspiracy. You puttin' words in my mouth to make yourself look good or something?


So what does this statement by you imply?



- but strangely enough they do not get their papers published in 'peer review' outlets. I have trafficked with scientists and whistleblowers for over 25 years, in all fields of science - and I can assure you that much control is exerted over what gets published and what doesn't. It is not just financial interests that dominate 'suppression' of valuable discussion through peer-review - it is now at the point where much of science has become a religion


Sounds like a conspiracy to me, what do you classify it as?

I’ll ask again, do you believe in a world-wide conspiracy to surpress archaeological evidence or is it only in the USA?



Oh I know the difference all right.


Okay then why do you say the Virginia case is a cover up? It wasn’t covered up it just wasn’t accepted. Please explain how it was “covered up”

Is her report and all the other ones not freely available?

Oh I used this source as a reminder of that case.

Virgnia's case



Nothing that will convince you.


It has been my experience that this phrase is used to denote a lack of compelling evidence.

Oh Duncan by the way I believe that Virginia's and the other data had merit and the site should be re-investigated



[edit on 8/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Duncan

So you have no non-consensus reality, but you mock the consenus version of reality? How odd. Or is this the old ploy "if I never present an opinon or evidence I can never be shown to be wrong", thingy.

Ah so you deny you believe in a world wide conspiracy?



Umm - where do I say anything like this? I haven't even hinted at any world wide conspiracy. You puttin' words in my mouth to make yourself look good or something?


So what does this statement by you imply?



- but strangely enough they do not get their papers published in 'peer review' outlets. I have trafficked with scientists and whistleblowers for over 25 years, in all fields of science - and I can assure you that much control is exerted over what gets published and what doesn't. It is not just financial interests that dominate 'suppression' of valuable discussion through peer-review - it is now at the point where much of science has become a religion


Sounds like a conspiracy to me, what do you classify it as?

I’ll ask again, do you believe in a world-wide conspiracy to surpress archaeological evidence or is it only in the USA?



Oh I know the difference all right.


Okay then why do you say the Virginia case is a cover up? It wasn’t covered up it just wasn’t accepted. Please explain how it was “covered up”

Is her report and all the other ones not freely available?

Oh I used this source as a reminder of that case.

Virgnia's case



Nothing that will convince you.


It has been my experience that this phrase is used to denote a lack of compelling evidence.

Oh Duncan by the way I believe that Virginia's and the other data had merit and the site should be re-investigated


[edit on 8/5/08 by Hanslune]


Did you ever contact Virginia to hear her version of events? What has been reported about the case - which is NOT very much considering the potential importance of the findings - is not the full picture.
I consider it a coverup because the story has been repeatedly squashed from appearing on any mainstream media outlet, and from being properly presented in peer review magazines. Sure it has been tossed around the internet - but that doesn't count by my definition, because again, most of it has been sanitized.
I have spoken to several other disgruntled archaeologists who basically found themselves in the same position - ie either alter data, shutup, (or both) or face academic extinction. None of these scientists want me to publish their stories - they all just want to keep their jobs. You will never ever hear of any of these cases unfortunately.
You accuse me of believing in a world wide conspiracy - why? Where have I ever said this - in my magazine or anywhere on the internet? Do statements like this reflect your level of accuracy (let alone integrity) - if so, I am wasting my time.
Of course Virginia's case has merit - but the site will never be investigated and reported on - will it? Why is that do you think?
Duncan



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Howdy Duncan




Did you ever contact Virginia to hear her version of events? What has been reported about the case - which is NOT very much considering the potential importance of the findings - is not the full picture.


Hans: Have you contacted every single person involved in every aspect of every case that has come up in regards to Archaeology over the last fourty years? If not why not?



I consider it a coverup because the story has been repeatedly squashed from appearing on any mainstream media outlet, and from being properly presented in peer review magazines.


Hans: It has been in several TV presentations, in books, and her paper and those of the other contributors were published.

Geological evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site, Valsequillo, Mexico V STEEN-MCINTYRE, R FRYXELL, HE MALDE - Quaternary Research, 1981

I ran her name thru and found four pages of articles she has published on the subject of interest and other aspects of geology.



Sure it has been tossed around the internet - but that doesn't count by my definition, because again, most of it has been sanitized.


Hans: What has been removed? Plus you don’t seemed to have researched her peer-reviewed publication record.



I have spoken to several other disgruntled archaeologists who basically found themselves in the same position - ie either alter data, shutup, (or both) or face academic extinction.


Hans: What about those archaeologists who are not in academia or independents? You do know what tenure is don’t you?



None of these scientists want me to publish their stories - they all just want to keep their jobs. You will never ever hear of any of these cases unfortunately.


Hans: Then we really cannot consider that information to be data we can work with can we? I’ve been involved in the world of Archaeology for 40+ years and have not come upon or heard of such cases as you describe. However where there has been reluctance to publish something from an institution, for any reason, the author has simply published it elsewhere or leaked it.



You accuse me of believing in a world-wide conspiracy - why?


Hans: Who or what organization is responsible for the claimed sanitization of Virginia’s work? You say someone is preventing media from discussing the case, who is doing that? You talk like there is a vast conspiracy but don’t seem to want to admit it. It’s a puzzling contradiction.



Where have I ever said this - in my magazine or anywhere on the internet?


Hans: You keep implying it, I asked the question above to try and clear it up.



Do statements like this reflect your level of accuracy (let alone integrity) - if so, I am wasting my time.


Hans: It reflects my reaction to your comments. Who or what is responsible for what you believe is the “coverup” of Viriginia’s work? Oh and my integrity is just fine, I just checked and I'm leaking neither gas or fluids.

Definition of conspiracy
1. a secret plan to carry out an illegal or harmful act
2. the act of making such plans

You seem to be saying this is happening but….



Of course Virginia's case has merit - but the site will never be investigated and reported on - will it?


Hans: Why won’t it? Since you insist there is no conspiracy – what’s to stop it? What do you think is so important to keep from being re-identified and re-published at that site? Oh and how do you know it has merit? By what expertise do you make that judgement?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
This just in

Duncan I found your rant that the site Virginia wouldn't be relooked at a bit odd so I checked.

Relooking at the site




Several potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna.

Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and this Excavations at the Hueyatlaco sitematerial was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966.

Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco.

Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site.

This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).





For detailed discussions of this case:

1. Hueyatlaco Site and Table Mountain - [www.hallofmaat.com]

2. Hueyatlaco Revisited - [www.hallofmaat.com]

3. The Age of the Hueyatlaco Site Revisited - [www.hallofmaat.com]

4. Re: The Age of the Hueyatlaco Site Revisited - [www.hallofmaat.com]

5. Comments on VanLandingham (2004) - [www.hallofmaat.com]

Removed comments on a co-writer of Virginia's - found some other information that marginalized it.

[edit on 8/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy TC Mike

Well that was an inventive scenario. What do you base these ideas on?

Pangea was from around 250 million years ago, so what time frame are your assigning to your idea?


Well they aren't all my ideas to claim. It is based on Walt Brown's , Ph.D., hydroplate theory and the Bible timetable of an approximate creation of 6000 years ago. Pangea was created, God gathered the land in one place, He just didn't name it Pangea like we do today. The rest of the earth's surface was ocean. An equal ocean of water was layered beneath the earth's crust & Mantle. See this site for the firmament separation from the original Hebrew: www.creationscience.com...

This water was superheated & compressed by many miles of rock. God provided the release fracture point at the time of the flood for this subterranian water, about 4500 years ago. The prolonged explosion of water-steam puts Krakatoa to shame. Thats like comparing a Nuke to a firecracker. Imagine if you blew up the entire world's nukes in a second, then repeated the process every second continuously for half a year, that might give you an idea of the energy being released.

So young Pangea splits apart, ripped apart, 4500 years ago and starts moving when gravitational forces within the earth seek equilibruim with the mass being displaced by the escape-velocity waters. This shifting mass of the earths core causes the exposed mantle of the atlantic floor to rise, causing the mid-oceanic ridge to form along the route where the most deformation occurs. This rise in land mass causes Pangea, now in pieces, to side away from the rise while still lubricated by the waters below. The continential drift is rapid, only taking days to occur, not millions of years. Energy is conserved, so stopping continents when they run out of lubricant will involve breakage, lifting, and heat energy, all forms of work. There you get fault lines, mountains, & magma.

The idea of Atlantis comes from Plato, that we know of. That knowledge remained although being lost, Plato's understanding of it was limited & had errors. If Plato fully knew what had happened he would have said Atlantis was blasted away into the sky creating the Atlantic ocean, instead we get him saying that it sank into the atlantic. Who knows, there still may be pieces of Atlantis scattered around the Atlantic ocean. Thats why no one can point to just one spot in the ocean and say, "Atlantis was right here.", with any certainty.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Duncan




Did you ever contact Virginia to hear her version of events? What has been reported about the case - which is NOT very much considering the potential importance of the findings - is not the full picture.


Hans: Have you contacted every single person involved in every aspect of every case that has come up in regards to Archaeology over the last fourty years? If not why not?



So I take it you didn't bother to contact Virginia Steen-McIntyre to find out her side of the story on this topic, which even you admit warrants further site research?
Duh - and what a silly comment back to me - is that the best you can do? Asking me if I have interviewed every archaeologist over the last 40 years - oh dearie me how lame!

Tell you what though, during my 25+ years of investigative journalism - I bet I have met and interviewed many more archaeologists and scientists than you have.

The rest of your cut-and-snippet comments are just more silly time-wasting point-scoring tactics used by losers who try to retain some dignity when they have run out of both manners and facts.
Here endeth my involvement with this discussion.
Duncan



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Howdy Duncan

Yeah I guess finding out that they are re-investigating the site really blew your rant out of the water?

We must talk in the future about your inability to say, "conspiracy"

LOL

See ya later Duncan



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Howdy TC Mike

Thanks for the detailed description. One question - why all the "nature technology"? Why didn't god just snap his metaphysical finger and just make it happen? Why try to make it sound scientific?

Regards

Hans



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The bible and other ancient cultures all speak of flying machines.

You have to remember that sometime between 20000bc and 6000 bc, something geat happened that wiped civilizations not only off the face of the planet but out of our minds and history.


Here is a video called UFO's in the bible

Google Video Link



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

329 BC: Alexander the Great records two great 'flying shields'
UFO CASE REPORT

329 BC: Alexander the Great records two great 'flying shields'
Date
329 BC Location
Central Asia,


Summary: Alexander the Great records two great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they were attempting a river crossing. The action so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon the river crossing until the following day.






1. Middle East (_Reign of Alexander the Great_, 356-323 B.C.) A
historian of the reign of Alexander the Great allegedly tells of
two strange craft that dived repeatedly at his army, until the
war elephants, the men, and all the horses panicked and refused
to cross the river where the incident occurred... The historian
describes the objects as "great shining silvery shields,
spitting fire around the rims... things that came from the skies
and returned to the skies." Frank Edwards: 'Stranger Than
Science' (See notes.) (Pan Books, London), p. 198.

www.ufoevidence.org...

[edit on 8-5-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy TC Mike

Thanks for the detailed description. One question - why all the "nature technology"? Why didn't god just snap his metaphysical finger and just make it happen? Why try to make it sound scientific?


Why bother with science? Well first of all I love science & thinking. I can do math/calculus but its a chore, lol. I was raised on evolutionary science & thinking in public school & college. It was only my persistance in trying to combine my beliefs in the Bible with science that I was able to see that the evidence really does point to Creation. I'm so glad that Ben Stein made his movie, I hope it challenges everyone to think and not accept the world view the majority scientists want you to think.

As for God just snaping his fingers & making the universe without cause & effect, that would make God a liar. God did not make everything as you see it today. If he did, light would take more time to reach the earth from 20 billion light years than just 6000 years. So it would have to have been created light, not actual light from a star, say 50K light years away. Creating light on the way to our planet from all reaches of the universe would imply deception, the event-information we see in that light never actually came from the star but was created. God is not about deception.

Understanding how God created the universe, which was perfect when He did is necessary to understand. A perfect universe, perhaps a smaller universe, with perfect light, not decayed by entropy. Entropy & decay are a result of sin. What super-natural measures did God have to employ after sin entered the universe in order to keep it stable? Did light slow down in the past? Is time running at different rates in different places in the universe? Einstein says it can according to his theory of realitivity. God says he streached forth the heavens in the Bible, yet after the creation week. Do you know what effect this streaching has on the space-time continuum & matter(stars/galaxies) associated with it?

From our earth-based perspective, God has had time running for 6000 years. God created time, matter, & energy, he is not bound by it.

Oh and if I didn't have a scientific perspective all I could say is "because the Bible says so." I really don't think you wanna just hear that.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Howdy TC Mike stated: "Pangea was from around 250 million years ago, so what time frame are your assigning to your idea?"

It is certainly interesting to read the debate concerning this comment, but ultimately even scientists/archaeologists who are Christians have debated the length of time between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2.

This is because of 2 Peter 3:8, which says, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

So the Biblical AND the archaeological views concerning eras may in fact, coincide.

Another thing to consider: I once heard Dr Carl Baugh (Curator of the Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, TX) say in an interview that there are actually 2 specific instances mentioned in the Old Testament where God "stretched the fabric of the universe, causing the universe to appear far older than it actually is."

I do not recall which Old Testament scriptures he cited to support this claim, but I recall looking up those scriptures at the time, and found that indeed they do state that.

Scientists also have debated the accuracy of the so-called "Carbon-14 dating" method...so who knows HOW OLD the universe actually is.

Dr Baugh also stated in the same interview that a sort of nuclear meltdown occured in the core of the earth during the flood, causing an extremely high pitched sound to travel into space and blow up a planet, the remnants of which became part of Saturns rings. And (according to Dr. Baugh) NASA has recorded the starsong of each now-known planet in the Solar System, and has stated that there appears to be a note missing from the Solar Music Scale--right where a planet may have been located prior to Noah's flood.

So I agree with what you guys have posted here heretofore.



[edit on 9-5-2008 by livingtorch]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Howdy LT and Mike

I'll let you guys talk bible by yourselves but will ask one question before I flee.



NASA has recorded the starsong of each now-known planet in the Solar System, and has stated that there appears to be a note missing from the Solar Music Scale--right where a planet may have been located prior to Noah's flood.


I'll challenge you on that one LT. Can you give us a link or cite to a primary source for that please?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Hey Hans!

After reading your challenge, I Googled the NASA/Starsong thing, and saw your post on the bautforum website. No. I have not gone silent about this.

I'm a full-time Student at the Unversity Of Phoenix online pusuing a Bachelors degree in I.T./Multimedia & Visual Communication, and have not had a chance to check out the progress of this thread for a few days.

You will see below, I merely cited Dr. Carl Baugh on this claim.

"And (ACCORDING TO DR BAUGH) NASA has recorded the starsong of each now-known planet in the Solar System, and (DR BAUGH --sorry, this parenthetical statement was not in the original, but Dr Baugh is who I was referring to here--) has stated that there appears to be a note missing from the Solar Music Scale--right where a planet may have been located prior to Noah's flood."

I went to the Creation Evidence Museum website for confirmation of this quote at www.creationevidence.org. No email address for me to request the confirmation. I tried calling the number on their website, and there was no answer. I even went to the NASA website to confirm this. I performed a search for Starsong, but found nothing there about Starsong at this time. I do recall researching Starsong on NASA's website in the past though.

I'm not sure what else I can do for confirmation here though.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Howdy LT

I think we can set that "quote" at the bottom of a long list of creationist "made up stuff".

Good luck on your degree!



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TC Mike
 


I happen to concur with your story as it definitely has the ring of truth.

Whether Atlantis was in fact destroyed in Noah's flood, or whether the Atlanteans were destroyed (just as the Raman's were) in a sort of prehistoric atomic blast as the supposed Hindu texts state, is not at issue here.

And as for those who believe that your story does not make sense I propose a Biblical answer to them. Twice in the Old testament of the Bible it clearly states that God actually stretched the fabric of space. So although the earth is in fact only around 5,000-6,000 years old, time and space have BOTH been stretched to cause an appearance of things being older.

A support for this theory is that of something called Radio Halos in crystalline granite. The following excerpt is taken from:

75.125.60.6...

"Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."

In English, the above statement says that half of the existence of polonium-214 is used up in 0.000164 seconds. This proves that the crystallized surface on granite could NEVER have formed over millions of years, but rather proves that God spoke and it happened.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
There are some huge problems with Dr. Brown's theories that you may not be aware of.


Originally posted by TC Mike
This water was superheated & compressed by many miles of rock. God provided the release fracture point at the time of the flood for this subterranian water, about 4500 years ago. The prolonged explosion of water-steam puts Krakatoa to shame.


4500 years ago is 2500 BC. The Egyptians, Sumerians, and Chinese (among others) had developed large civilization by 2500 BC and were busy writing their own histories and documents.

None of these mentions being a single large continent -- OR that before there was Pangaea, there was supercontinent Rodinia (en.wikipedia.org...). You'd have also thought that they would notice Laurasia drifting away from Gondwanaland... since trading voyages were done by ocean and river.


So young Pangea splits apart, ripped apart, 4500 years ago and starts moving when gravitational forces within the earth seek equilibruim with the mass being displaced by the escape-velocity waters.


Life forms wouldn't have survived... and the civilizations that were flourishing then would have surely noticed and written about all the deaths and centuries of constant destruction. But they didn't.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by livingtorch
"And (ACCORDING TO DR BAUGH) NASA has recorded the starsong of each now-known planet in the Solar System, and (DR BAUGH --sorry, this parenthetical statement was not in the original, but Dr Baugh is who I was referring to here--) has stated that there appears to be a note missing from the Solar Music Scale--right where a planet may have been located prior to Noah's flood."


You're going to have problems confirming this one. NASA/JPL did indeed record the "sounds" (not real sounds, but plasma wave pulses) of the planets, but they're not single notes. They're a squeal of electromagnetic noises but have been turned into music: www.jpl.nasa.gov...

There's no "missing note" because no planet produces a single note (and musicians would immediately ask "okay... which musical scale are we talking about -- diatonic? pentatonic? something else???" (home22.inet.tele.dk...)

I think Dr. Baugh is being narrowly focused by his own culture and beliefs.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by livingtorch
Lastly, I cannot escape the evidence of the Temple of Abyddos in Egypt depicting what appears to be a helicopter, a fighter jet, a hydrofoil, and a submarine.

But what do you think?

I would like more evidence to support my theory that early man had the ability to fly.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON I have shown those photos to pick out the one object as a helicopter. Most get the submarine, some say jet and some say rocket ship.

I believe that not only did man have flight, he traveled to other planets. I believe the monuments on mars and the moon (if there are such things) were created by man.

Another thing that lends credence to this is the ancient chinese emperor's wife who stated that she went to the moon and it was both hot as fire, and cold as ice.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join