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.

 

In the "Greatest Debate" one fact is needed. Accepted Science vs. Super Advanced Ancients;

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I recently got into a discussion here on an ATS thread about the possibilty of super advanced ancients. I decided to go and review some of the other threads in which this debate has ensued . What I have found is truly amazing. This debate has already been covered in such amazing detail by both sides that it is impossible to determine a winner of the debate because when it gets down to the nitty gritty, there is no way to prove the S.A.A because the science minded guys will always win when they ask their counterparts to simply ..."prove it" . The proponents of the Super Advanced Ancients theory have some good resources at thier disposal, mainly the many texts of the ancient indian writings that really seem to lend creedence to this possibility. The other strong evidence on thier side is the discoveries of areas that seem to have radiation fallout and so called nuclear glass in areas that they say was devestated by a nuclear bomb. Lost cities discovered on shore lines and ancient artifacts that seem to imply an advanced past are also brought up as evidence. Stone carvings that look like planes/space ships, crystal skulls, megalithic stones of seemingly impossible size, carvings like Abydos, and the growing evidence that the Sphinx and the Pyramids were from a much more pre-historic time then scholarly exceptence.
BUT...Here is the problem for this school of thinking, though they have evidence that appears to support their story. They get knocked down by some very intelligent and well read proponents of accepted scientific theory time and again. There always seems to be just enough "assumption" going on in the S.A.A. theory that posters like Byrd and Vagabond for example, will knock them down with accepted theory "facts" all day long.
Still..the debate lives on. All though the proponents of accepted theory can poke holes all day long in the Super Advanced Ancient theory they can't make it go away all together with the knock out blow. Indigo-Child for one has posted some very convincing arguments in support of the A.A. theory. Just search ATS for this topic and you'll see what I mean. The radiation could have been from a meteor etc.. ... There is no evidence of ancient cultures with advanced technology on earth .Where are their skyscrapers etc..... The thing is they are right!! .. ATS has done it's work on me. Deny Ignorance!!Until we have something that is undeniable truth of Super Advanced Ancients, they will and should knock down every theory they can with accepted scientific theory. This is a bit of a revelation for me as I have read every bit of Sitchin, Gardner, Maars, Icke, Henry ,Hancock etc. The fact unfortunately remains though, that nobody that is a proponent of the Super Advanced Ancient Theory can prove to me, with one unarguable fact, that I may have wasted many years of "wishfull believing" in something that may not be true. If there is that one fact that I have missed please, please post it here for me. As I really enjoy the taste of that particular kool aid. I just need one that can stand up to these scholarly night watchmen who come into speculative threads shooting down uncertainty with science. HELP!
By the way, like I mentioned to start I don't believe the debate is over as the "speculative" facts on the S.A.A. side are definately juicy to say the least. Juicy is not truth though.That is what I am learning.They just have not stood up to some of the counterblows delivered by the proponents of accepted scientific theory.
So...Who among you can stand up to this "old guard" with facts to back up the theory that at one time in our distant past there was at least one civilzation that was Super Advanced with capabilities for awesome weaponry, flying machines, and an understanding of our universe on par with what we know today. Without this one fact,some of my favorite authors will always remain in the speculative section of my favorite book store where they belong.




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DrPaulisENKI
 

Here are some of the threads I have read through this week that were debated on both sides with great effort.

Indigo's amazing thread; Watch for Vagabond's post on page 1. Wow!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thread I was involved in that lead to my digging.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some other threads. There are so many good one!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can this not be settled here on ATS once and for all. Settled that is for anyone who is willing to remain open to any and all conclusions. I mean I really believe it is the "greatest debate" ever because of the implications at stake. One fact to change history forever. In the thousands of "speculative" books written has not one fact presented itself to demand a re-write of history.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DrPaulisENKI
 


In this thread here by devildog he asks the question of "truth" . Is the quest worth it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=4294250#pid4294250

It's how i feel about the subject of our ancients, and whether or not they were super advanced. Now that I have read more and more of the presentation as put forward by the
accepted theory proponents, I feel further and further away from the truth. Every possible point on the subject has been debated time and again on ATS without a clear resolution. It's like Sitchin ... before I ever new about ATS I was sure he was really on to something. On ATS though, if you bring him up you better be prepared for the ridicule that will follow.

I guess I understand it though. If the accepted theory proponents are going to give in at all ..... They need one verifiable fact.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DrPaulisENKI
 


What is a fact? What was a so called fact a thousand years ago may not be a fact today. Can a human using five physical senses know truth or reality? If the physical senses are limited then the mind is also limited. Certainly there is more to reality than most of us perceive. So what good would this fact do? Perhaps humans are recently rediscovering what was known millions of years ago. How did ancient people thousands of years ago know about the planets in our solar system without the aid of telescopes? Two of those planets modern man rediscovered in the last 200 years. What is known as magic today may have been considered as natural in the past. It seems the ancients were more intuned with their natural surroundings or creation than modern man and perhaps knew things in a different manner than our so called advanced civilization. We have not learned to deal with ego or understood self let alone claimed to know facts that are suppose to prove something. The nature of the universe is change. Humans are part of the universe and so humans change or are suppose to. Perhaps this is why facts change and gives credience to creation that continues to create. These are my thoughts on this debat and many others. In my opinion, we are just babies in a universe of life and we probably don't really know what real intelligence is.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Howdy Enki

I've run out of time tonight so I'll just address one of your last comments:



It seems the ancients were more intuned with their natural surroundings or creation than modern man and perhaps knew things in a different manner than our so called advanced civilization.


Then one must ask why there written records sound like they were written by present day humans - you see example of greed, hate, stupidity, love - they seem pretty much like us.

Also if they were so great why (except for the Chinese) did there civilizations all collaspe or fall victim to being overrun with barbarians?

One wonders



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


What's going on Hanslune? .... I was hoping you would show up. First a concession ...and then a favor. Your right!!! .. about Sitchin. I can not find the fact you seek to support my "opinion" that there is more to his theory than just myth. Oh.. how I so desperately wanted to bring it to our discussion and show you the light. So like I said in my OP.. I poured through each and every thread about "advanced ancients" looking for the "fact" you seek. Surely ...I thought ...someone who is smarter than I has dropped it in a thread for my disposal. ..... Yet ..... to my dismay it still eludes me and in that case ATS all together. Yes..yes...there are some really great posts like i said that are convincing in regards to ancient astronauts, atlantian castaways, reptilian overlords, time travelers, heck ...there was even a thread that had me "convinced" our Gods live in the Earth and come out to check on us every few thousand years.

But then .... I noticed each and every "straw man" falling down in absence of the ever elusive "fact" .. So I say ... Thank you hanslune for helping my find my ATS mission. To some day bring you this "fact" you seek ... in effort to help support some of these great "theorists" I have been reading for about 10 years. My library straight up looks like the "who's who of speculative writers" ... That's what i will call them until one day I can prove that just one fact that they have presented definately "trumps" an accepted theory of "mainstream science or history"

Now my favor in the form of a question. Since you are a man of science ...maybe you can help set me a drift on this vast ocean of uncertainty I now embark....as i'm sure I am not the first speculative theorist you have had a discourse with.

Where has the best "theory" for a highly advanced civilization been presented? .... or better yet...What is the most difficult evidence presented by supporters of the Super Advanced Ancient "theory" for you or any of your "old guard" colleagues to defend? ...and I mean that term with respect! You have every right to "guard" the accepted science you hold as truth. I know it's not Sitchin
The indian writings? .. How about some of the recently discovered cities found of the coast around the world as described in G.H. book "Underworld"? .... Thanks In Advance.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Charleerich
 


Hey i'm with you. But groovy esoteric answers are easy to come by and unfortunately even easier to "debunk" . You and I probably would agree on a lot ....but... I am still going to look for my White Whale. The rule for the fact is that it must be outside of accepted sciences carefully cultivated garden and help to prove the "theory" of super advanced ancients... and as you mentioned ....remain a fact in todays present age. Give it a go!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Howdy Enki

We are traveling the same road. I cannot think of a single scientist or amateur* who wouldn't be trilled to discover that fact(s) that would lead to acceptance of an advanced human civilization or aliens.

Not the hardest thing to disprove but the best indicator of a possible AHC or alien intervention?

Nothing immediately comes to mind. I shall have to speculate.

If an alien reconnaissance ship entered this system 750,000 years ago, we'd never know or even if a separate probe landed on this planet.

If an earlier hominid reached intelligence and culture earlier, built a "city state culture" based on wood then died out or the site was covered by water. It would be very difficult to detect. If an earlier species reached intelligence this again would be difficult to detect (but in all these cases not impossible)

Big planet. Lots of time. Big Universe. Even more time. It will take 2-3,000 years to completely survey and sampling of all existing land sites on the planet - add another 5-8,000 years for all underwater sites (based on the amount of work done in archaeology in the last 200 years and there being no change in remote sensing equipment) Therefore there is always "hope".




* There are a few religious motivated people who would have a problem with this but I discount them.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrPaulisENKI
.... there is no way to prove the S.A.A because the science minded guys will always win when they ask their counterparts to simply ..."prove it" .


Well, don't you think that's fair? It's one thing to "believe" that there were highly advanced civilizations (if we're using technology as our measure of a civilization), but I think most people want some sort of proof beyond someone's opinion.

Personally, I would LOVE for someone to find an ancient artifact that is beyond a shadow of a doubt some sort of "proof" of a highly advanced ancient civilization. What a discovery that would be! Unfortunately, not one of the so-called artifacts that are talked about on fringe sites has panned out into anything real.

I find the geological investigation of the Sphinx to be promising (i.e. possible water erosion). However, anyone serious knows that the pyramids are not significantly older than what modern archeology already tells us.

The problem with a lot of these threads (and I've mentioned it here before) is that someone will dump a bunch of so-called ancient advanced artifacts in a big list, and then use that as proof of something. Personally, I think each and every case of an anomalous artifact deserves its own thread so we can investigate in a serious way. I started one years ago here (www.abovetopsecret.com...) because I was interested in it, and I think the members here did a good job of explaining what it was.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74

Originally posted by DrPaulisENKI
.... there is no way to prove the S.A.A because the science minded guys will always win when they ask their counterparts to simply ..."prove it" .


Well, don't you think that's fair? It's one thing to "believe" that there were highly advanced civilizations (if we're using technology as our measure of a civilization), but I think most people want some sort of proof beyond someone's opinion.

"Prove" is too strong a word for archaeology. I would be happy if evidence was found that merely "indicated" such a thing.

It never has been.


Originally posted by JustMe74
Personally, I would LOVE for someone to find an ancient artifact that is beyond a shadow of a doubt some sort of "proof" of a highly advanced ancient civilization. What a discovery that would be! Unfortunately, not one of the so-called artifacts that are talked about on fringe sites has panned out into anything real.

I find the geological investigation of the Sphinx to be promising (i.e. possible water erosion).

There is an article about that very subject in the "Tinwiki" section of this very website.
HERE is a link to the article which was, by the way, very well written by an obviously extremely knowledgeable and erudite person. A person to be admired. A writer of such ability that comparisons pale. An author of little renown but great ego.

Wait, I mean...


Oh well, read it and tell me what you think.

People might be surprised to find out that Schoch hasn't based his idea on water erosion at all. It's just serendipitous that apparent water erosion (sort of) coincides with what he really bases the theory on.

Harte



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMe74
 


"Well, don't you think that's fair? It's one thing to "believe" that there were highly advanced civilizations (if we're using technology as our measure of a civilization), but I think most people want some sort of proof beyond someone's opinion."

74 ... Yes! I do think it is more than fair. I'm turning the page on speculation , in light of soft to hard facts that have some substance and can be further investigated. Like i was telling hanslune .. i've spent many years accumulating exciting theories from speculative authors that have been "mostly" debunked here on ATS. Does it completely change my opinion on some subjects i hold dear such as the mystery of the ancients. No. It only makes me more determined to keep digging and hope that my opinion is better supported in the future. Where i will take my first step is what i'm focused on right now. Say for example Graham Hancock's book "Underworld" .... He has done some great work in researching the appearance of ancient and lost worlds off of our coasts around the world. In it he has some scientists who have helped map the rise and fall of the oceans throughout time in an effort to date these "finds" . So maybe I start there. I don't know for sure yet how that will hold up but if we can start to adjust our interpretation of the capabilities of lost ancient cultures than somewhere down the line i can start to tie it together. I'm kind of rambling here ... just trying to make a point on how it may be done the right way. Make a little speculation transform into a greater possibility ... and someday quite possibly a fact.

What may i ask ... if any ... is something about our ancients that perplexes you? Something maybe that pushes the envelope of what we scientifically believe their capabilities to have been? T.I.A.
if any have been solidified as unnatural, but if they have, that could be start.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Very informative article by the way. This is what i'm talking about.



Because of this, Schoch is comfortable with a date of at the latest 4750 BC for the first exposure of the floor of the sphinx enclosure on the eastern (front) side. And the uncertainty in the dating is what allows this portion of the enclosure to be "possibly" dated to 7000BC or even earlier. This time period corresponds well with a wet period at Giza that could account for the apparent rainwater runoff type of weathering that can be seen on the enclosure walls and on the sphinx body itself. The most recent wet period that we know of at Giza when there was rain enough to account for this observed water erosion on the sphinx enclosure wall was during what's called the Neolithic Wet Phase. The height of this wet period was around 6,000 BC.


I'm curious.... because i know that Hancock uses Schoch's work as a reference ... on how much acceptance there is for his dating here. If the Sphinx was built almost 9000 years ago would this not call for a retraction on what the capabilities of humans of that era were 'scientifically' evaluated to posses . Maybe this is going to be easier than i thought. Ok ...totally kidding about that.

Are you more in line with Schoch's date?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Howdy Enki and Harte

Sphinx

More sphinx

Yet more

Yet even more

My own view is that the Sphinx was a modified limestone outcropping that was repeatedly improved on during a long use. I think some of the wear comes from water damage from a higher than usual Nile and the proto-Sphinx may have originally been made as far back as 5000 BC.

The problem remains however that the erosion rate of limestone under the onslaught of X amount of rain over y years remains unknown.

However an older Sphinx just points to a more active early Egyptian period and not to an advanced human or alien culture.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   


If the Sphinx was built almost 9000 years ago would this not call for a retraction on what the capabilities of humans of that era were 'scientifically' evaluated to posses .


Retraction? By whom?

If some other data is found that shows that the Sphinx, or more properly a proto-Sphinx, was built earlier that just becomes another brownie point for the early cultures that later became what we call the Egyptians.

In Archaeology as new information comes in the older information is just overlaid. sometimes footnoted and science moves on.

Remember there is lot of data for humans building with stone in other parts of the ME at this time.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrPaulisENKI
reply to post by Harte
 


Very informative article by the way. This is what i'm talking about.



Because of this, Schoch is comfortable with a date of at the latest 4750 BC for the first exposure of the floor of the sphinx enclosure on the eastern (front) side. And the uncertainty in the dating is what allows this portion of the enclosure to be "possibly" dated to 7000BC or even earlier. This time period corresponds well with a wet period at Giza that could account for the apparent rainwater runoff type of weathering that can be seen on the enclosure walls and on the sphinx body itself. The most recent wet period that we know of at Giza when there was rain enough to account for this observed water erosion on the sphinx enclosure wall was during what's called the Neolithic Wet Phase. The height of this wet period was around 6,000 BC.


I'm curious.... because i know that Hancock uses Schoch's work as a reference ... on how much acceptance there is for his dating here. If the Sphinx was built almost 9000 years ago would this not call for a retraction on what the capabilities of humans of that era were 'scientifically' evaluated to posses . Maybe this is going to be easier than i thought. Ok ...totally kidding about that.

Are you more in line with Schoch's date?


Actually, there's nothing about Schoch's date that would require any advanced knowledge of the peoples that we know were in the area at the time.

You'll note that Schoch based it on exposure of the bedrock. That doesn't mean anything regarding the carving of the shape we see today.

Also, we know the Egyptians created the shape we see by covering the carved rock with a smooth surface of stones. The rock, a very soft and variable limestone, underneath these coverings probably looks very little like a sphinx.

In fact, it's entirely possible that Schoch has it right but that it has little or nothing to do with any human activity at all. The front floor of the sphinx enclosure (the part Schoch dates as ancient in the extreme) could have been exposed by natural means, such as erosion or something like a sinkhole, long before the Egyptians started carving on it. It is ancient limestone, after all, which is known for such things.

It could even just be the result of a couple of gulleys formed by runoff thousands of years earlier, when the plateau was wetter and the drainage swept around a harder inclusion in the rock. The part that makes the "head" today rises above the plateau after all, just like several other similar rock outcroppings in the area. That would tend to indicate that this part of the limestone is somewhat more resistant to erosion that the surrounding matrix. Otherwise, the area would be level naturally.

If I had to bet, I'd say the Sphinx was carved in the time frame Egyptologists claim and for the reasons they postulate.

But I don't bet all that much.

Really I just wanted someone to read the article I wrote. Try the links at the bottom of the article. I found the one about the ivory tags to be very interesting, it leads to an article that gives the name of a book with more info regarding the pre-hieroglyphic depiction of the (possible) sphinx on one of the ivory and/or wooden tags that were used in early dynastic and predynastic times.
This link will tell you about these early tags, but not about a sphinx on one of them. Scroll down to "History and evolution."

I can't find the book, though it's apparently famous - written by a scientist and not involved with the fringe in any way. It's just a compendium (I think) of ancient relics found at (as I recall) Naqada and Abydos.

Anyway, there's more info at the links at the bottom of the tinwikki article.

Harte



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Hi Harte,

Nice Tinwiki article. I really enjoyed it.

From this and other articles about Schoch's interpretation of the Sphinx I've read, I still find it interesting his dates appear to keep getting younger. I believe eventually his interpretation and that of the mainstream will be in agreement. Both will only indicate that we can push the capabilities of the Egyptians further back in time, just not ridiculously so.

From one "Volunteer" to another, if you ever need help getting your head through the doorway, I'll bring a chainsaw.


cormac



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Well one doesn't want to encourage self-promotion......

Kudos on your article!



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Harte , Cormack, and Hanslune .... Thanks for your insight ! really good stuff. So I suppose i'll move on from the Sphinx then as I agree that though the date is not certain and still being debated it will not be a "fact" even at 7000 years B.C. to prove anything other than an earlier start to the Egyptian dynastic period .

I'm going to try to summarize a bit of what G.H. has presented in "Underworld" when I get a chance. If you guys have not had a chance to read some of his "opinions" on the rise and fall of sea levels and coincidently what that means in regards to some of the apparent man made structures of the coasts. Japan especially has some interesting structures that he believes are man made. I do believe though that he had Schoch dive with him a couple times , and Schoch was not ready to say they were in fact man made. I'll look around for a thread that may have already covered this in an effort to break off the meaty parts. take care.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrPaulisENKI
I'm going to try to summarize a bit of what G.H. has presented in "Underworld" when I get a chance. If you guys have not had a chance to read some of his "opinions" on the rise and fall of sea levels and coincidently what that means in regards to some of the apparent man made structures of the coasts. Japan especially has some interesting structures that he believes are man made. I do believe though that he had Schoch dive with him a couple times , and Schoch was not ready to say they were in fact man made. I'll look around for a thread that may have already covered this in an effort to break off the meaty parts. take care.

The Yonaguni "monument" is certainly a natural formation.

Please note that Hancock completely ignores actual archaeology from nearby Japan that dates to where he wants to place Yonaguni - and even earlier, in all of his arguments about what "could have been" at Yonaguni.

Look into the Jomon Culture. They were making pottery in 14,000 BC right there in Japan and Asia.

Hancock doesn't want to talk about them, apparently, because they prove that he's mistaken about archaeology and archaeologist.

Harte



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Yep GH writes for his existing fans, not science and reality. Of course he knows his fans won't challenge him on this.








top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join