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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DrPaulisENKI
 


Hi DrPaulisENKI,

One slight correction to something you said.




.......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 .


Actually, it wouldn't be a fact then as "dynastic" implies both Upper and Lower Egypt are unified. The Sphinx origin doesn't rely on Dynastic Egypt, it only relies on the creativity of the peoples involved.

Also, don't know if you've ever looked at what peoples lived in different areas of the ancient world or their geographic relationship to others. I've been interested for years and finally made a map last year of many examples. You can find it here:

Ancient Civilizations/Cultures of the World

As to GH, I don't think anyone would say that there were NO signs of settlements or such near ancient coastlines. Equating that with "advanced" or "highly advanced" peoples cannot currently be shown, however. As to Yonaguni, and other places, wanting something to be true does not make it true.

cormac




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Very interesting use of a map Cormac! Chock full of info.

May I suggest you go to the Hall of Ma'at and post the map there. I believe they will find it of value.

[edit on 7/5/08 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Grrrr ... You guys are like a kevlar vest for accepted science. That's great though. It's enlightening to know that when I find my fact it will have to hold up against some extremely intelligent minds. LOL ... Like I said originally ..being well read is not my problem but as you can see by the sources I present you guys may think it's been a waste of time. Funny .. I though G.H. was too mainstream compared to some of my favorites. .... I'll be back with more later. Hanslune is going to have to better explain some of the amazing megalith's of the world to me and how our ancients managed them with the accepted methods .... I'm sure you guys will help.
Take care for now. ....... as reality slowly sets in


Edit;spelling

[edit on 1192008Wed, 07 May 2008 20:51:53 -05005 9/11 by DrPaulisENKI]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Hanslune is going to have to better explain some of the amazing megalith's of the world to me and how are ancients managed them with the accepted methods







hehe



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   


Now that's a big rock! By the way .... all credit in research here should go to seekerof's thread about the trilthon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll borrow some of the best information presented to postulate that in fact the largest stones of Baalbek could not have been moved by the technology given by mainstream science to our ancients. If it would take some of the largest cranes on our planet today to move these stones then why should we not assume that our ancients were in fact "Super Advanced" and well beyond the capabilities science presently allows.

Here we go.

The once curator of the ruins has been quoted saying:

"... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'...."
www.thelivingweb.net...

Some would say the Roman's may have been responsible for these massive stones. .... but ...apparently there is no records from the Roman's themselves that mention the creation of these stones and they have been known to utilize existing foundations for there own structures built above.

This exerpt mention this as well ;



"There is no answer to this question until all the evidence has been presented in respect to the construction of the Great Platform, and it is in this area that we find some very contradictory evidence indeed. For example, when the unfinished upper course of the Great Platform was cleared of loose blocks and rubble, excavators found carved into its horizontal surface a drawing of the pediment (a triangular, gable-like piece of architecture present in the Temple of Jupiter). So exact was this design that it seemed certain the architects and masons had positioned their blocks using this scale plan.28 This meant that the Great Platform must have existed before the construction of the temple."
http//www.newdawnmagazine.com...



So if it was not the Roman's we must go back in time to possibly ....

"The Ruins at Baalbek"
http//www.tmeg.com...

Excerpt:

"Beneath the temples lay a greater wonder, a huge foundation comprising an area of more than five million square feet and containing more stone than the Great Pyramid at Giza. No mortar was used in its construction and yet in 2000 years it has not perceptibly settled. The secret of this stability lies in the downhill retaining wall, which contains three of the world's biggest blocks of cut stone. Stood upright, each would be as tall as a five story building, and weigh more than 600 tons."

From specialtyinterests.net
And this on the "TRILITHON" stones:

"Already in the last century it was observed that the Acropolis of Baalbek and the temples built on it date from different epochs. The massive substratum�the great base of the acropolis�appears to be of an earlier date; the three temples on the substratum, of a later date

So what gives guys? ... Can we at least set this off to the side for now as supportive evidence to the theory that our ancient ancestors were super advanced beyond our present understanding?

The device described here has been speculated as a possibility but if you read on about the application it is quite complicated and difficult to pull off under normal conditions. At Baalbek ? ...I doubt it.


www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...

Can't wait!!




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hey wait! I have'nt gotten to those yet. .. I'm saving them for later.

Your of the Cheops built it crowd ...I know.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Howdy Enki

The Trillies are about 800 tons each, The Egyptians moved heavier items over a thousand years earlier, with inferior technology to the Romans.

Here is a question for you (I presume you have not been to the site?) why did the Romans need such large stones at that particular spot? Answer that and you---have your answer as to why they are there. Oh and the stones came from a quarry fairly close by and uphill of the site. The larger stones of around 1,100 tons ( a second larger stone was found a few years ago) were never moved.

The 1904 German expedition went down to the baserock. The platform inside is typical Roman honeycomb construction. Brick matrix with rubble. Another German expedition completed there work a few years ago, there conclusion - Roman

There had been bronze building there but the Roman's appeared to have cleared and leveled the site prior to building.

How do you get a good fit? Cut them out of the same mother stone, if that isn't possible push them together and cut down between them - repeat until you get a razor sharp connection - every cut wood? Remember the Roman's had iron cutting technology.

Sitchin thought it was a landing base - yeah loose stones make a great landing platform. A heavy anything landing there would crush the matrix.

Oddly the Roman writers made no mention of these stones, although large they were dwarfed by larger Egyptians ones.

Where did the columns come from?

Theodor Wiegand: Baalbek. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905. 3 Bd. de Gruyter, Berlin 1921ff. Get a good German-English dictionary if you try to read this - some incredibly difficult words in that report.




Roman construction tech

A preliminary report on the 2001-2003 seasons
M van Ess - Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaise (BAAL), 2003





[edit on 7/5/08 by Hanslune]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join