Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atlantis = Gods of the Sumerians?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by Phage
 


obviously they didnt have technology relative to ours but they had to have technology on some scale to make the mathmatical calculations, the ramps, the "factories" - all of this requires some degree of technology - the question is how long did it take to aquire that "technology" n culture? and why were pyramids so important to the people all over the world when they had different purposes?
the more i research the more questions i end up with!


Cro-magnon (us, with our level of intelligence) has been around for at least 35,000 years. In your research you've probably found that the pyramids are probably as much as 3,500 years old (you'll find claims of much earlier). That leaves some 30,000 years to develop the math, the machines (even a ramp is a machine), the culture. 30,000 years is a very long time, time for one "stone" to be placed on another, time to try many things that didn't work to find the few that do.

Why pyramids? Form follows function. For whatever reason, some ancient civilizations wanted to build high structures. It turns that without steel, without modern materials, a pyramid is the shape that allows the tallest structure.

In Egypt it can be seen that it took many attempts before the techniques were perfected. The early attempts were crude and some failed, over time they got better at it. Here is a good article about the process.
Evolution of pyramids

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Phage]




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


yes i have seen the "evolution" of pyramids and they dont even know what were the old world and new world pyramids. in fact they cant date them at all as far as i know. i do not see this as proof just a theory.
and yes i've also spent years researching the evolution of man earth and animal species so i know about our evolution but i still do not see evidence of a culture that evolved on a steady course to reach the state of building such giant structures.
and this proves my point - why were they wondering around like village idiots if they had the capacity to do this in the first place coz obviously they did if all of a sudden within a millenium they've invented the most critical aspects of becoming a true civilisation. the wheel, language, writing, laws, medicine, agriculture, building for example were all invented in such a small time frame that i find it very suss. as i mentioned earlier - there is no steady evolution of culture - every where i read admit they just appeared or dont explain it properly which says to me that no one knows for sure. i'm sorry but if somethings not presented to me as an absolute fact with evidence to back it up then i wont take it as a fact just a theory.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mamasita
Theres no way ancient people went to all that effort with their primative tools - not to mention the fact that they all say they were there when they arrived.


However, I disagree and the evidence shows that I am far more likely to be right than you are.



Harte


how old are you anyway? hahaha thats the most immature response i've ever gotten!



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


You'll have to be satisfied with theory because the "absolute facts" about what happened in early human history will never been known.

Early humans were not, as you put it, idiots. They were just as intelligent as we are but for the majority of "our" time on the planet the climate was terrible. The earth was in the throes of the last glacial period. It took all of our intelligence to just stay alive. The development of language and medicine would have been crucial to survival and were surely developed very early in our history. Then, about 10,000 years ago, the climate got wetter and warmer. The development of agriculture and animal husbandry also began about 10,000 years ago. This is not a coincidence. Agriculture does not require much technology but it does require intelligence and planning, things that humans had in abundance. When the time was right, we were able to take advantage of it.

Agriculture leads to sufficient and even excess food supplies, excess food leads to the concentration of population, concentration of population leads to cities, cities lead to the development of culture and technology. It was a gradual process, taking thousands of years. It was not a steady process. Warfare, disease, famine, climate change, all these caused cities to grow, prosper, and fade away. Two steps forward, one step back. Some civilizations prospered and flowered while others, at the same time, stagnated and died. There are some who believe that when a civilization fades away all that it accomplished is lost. This is not true. Though the buildings collapse and may even be buried by other cities, the culture and useful knowledge continues and is used and adapted and developed by those who follow.

You see the development of civilization as occurring too fast. Cities appear to have developed suddenly out of a tribal and nomadic lifestyle. Cultural advances appear to have sprung up. It was 5,000 years from the beginnings of civilization to the Sumerians. It was 6,000 years from the early beginnings of civilization in the Middle East to the earliest Egyptian civilization. 6,000 years to develop the wheel, writing, and law. It took another 1,000 years to develop the high culture of the Old Kingdom. In geologic terms, 1,000 years is less than an eye blink. In human terms 1,000 years is a very long time, 50 generations. Generations of which each had its own inventors, philosophers, and leaders.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 





thanks for this i found the sites interesting, but do you know if they have actually tried this?
i have actually been into ancient egypt since i was a kid but after they kept changing their stories about how the pyramids were built so many times i just left it until a big news story came on with a definate theory.



For sure? They have tried at least most of the theories. Most of the reason these are submitted is because of the anecdotal evidence, in the form of leftover material or unfinished working on rocks and stattues.
Then, in order to be a accepted theory the results must be able to be replicated.
I'm sorry, but unlike Byrd or Harte, my brain's a bit holy, and I can't pull up exact sources, most of what I get is from TV or from books I haven't read for several years.

And yes, unless you are very much on top of Egyptology or any of the ancient studies you'll fall behind very quikly. Most of my books are from the late eighties, and while being fairly accurate in a general sense, are very much out of date in a strict sense.
Mostly I enjoy the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, and since they are more brain candy than anything else, the facts tend to pool together in the back of my head.



or even better - man carried a 50 tonne block of rock and carried it miles and pulled it all the way up a tower just for a tomb!


Now this is something that hasn't changes a great deal since I read up, except for some of the smaller details.
First, this tomb was for a God, and they built a few before they great pyramids.

A bit about the evolution of the pyramids:
www.cartage.org.lb... Pyramid.htm

A look through our basic history reveals we've done some fairly impressive things for our Gods, who've rarely seemed to take part or notice.
They had a living God, who could possibly get ticked off and decide your family will have a really bad day.

And, keep in mind, it also wasn't so much the Egyptians who did the construction, but the slaves.
If you'd like a rough analogy, think of the cotton fields of the South before the Civil War. Today, in order to be cost effective, you' have to have a machine to harvest the cotton.
Of course, at the time they didn't have the machines needed to harvest and process the cotton. They had teams of slaves who had to do whatever their masters ordered them to.

Today, it would cost a large amount of money, health care, ect. to higher people to tend the fields. Aside from that, if their boss tried to make them work outside of required work laws, he'd get more than a bit hassled by Workers Comp and Fair Work Law Practices.

Now, aside from that.
The shape of the pyramid is actually a good idea. If you want to pile several stone on top of each other, the pyramid shape make s afair bit of sense.
Think of it this way, when you let soil drift out of your hand, what shape does it take?
Usually a hill, though you can form a rough pyramid shape as well.
THe shape supports weight well, and is pretty easy to work out and plan on paper.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mamasita
 


You'll have to be satisfied with theory because the "absolute facts" about what happened in early human history will never been known.


NO! that is ridiculous! i will only depend on true facts - and there might not be that many but at least when i say something and say its a fact i mean its a fact - you can not show me a theory and present it as a fact and expect me to take it as a fact! no no no! that is so wrong! that is the reason our history is so stuffed up - you just fit theories in as fact and leave it like that and when real facts are presented.
and how do you know that they will never be known? we are constantly making new discoveries and our means of dating objects are becoming more advanced.


Early humans were not, as you put it, idiots. They were just as intelligent as we are but for the majority of "our" time on the planet the climate was terrible. The earth was in the throes of the last glacial period. It took all of our intelligence to just stay alive. The development of language and medicine would have been crucial to survival and were surely developed very early in our history. Then, about 10,000 years ago, the climate got wetter and warmer. The development of agriculture and animal husbandry also began about 10,000 years ago. This is not a coincidence. Agriculture does not require much technology but it does require intelligence and planning, things that humans had in abundance. When the time was right, we were able to take advantage of it.


That, I do agree with and see the common sense in that. However there are still so many more questions. In every book i read scientists and historians admit that the arrival of the sumerians and the language/scripts were unique and unknown so i dont know why everyone is arguing with me like its a fact. It is still a mystery.


You see the development of civilization as occurring too fast. Cities appear to have developed suddenly out of a tribal and nomadic lifestyle. Cultural advances appear to have sprung up. It was 5,000 years from the beginnings of civilization to the Sumerians. It was 6,000 years from the early beginnings of civilization in the Middle East to the earliest Egyptian civilization. 6,000 years to develop the wheel, writing, and law. It took another 1,000 years to develop the high culture of the Old Kingdom. In geologic terms, 1,000 years is less than an eye blink. In human terms 1,000 years is a very long time, 50 generations. Generations of which each had its own inventors, philosophers, and leaders.


everywhere i read they say the sumerian ways is a mystery. and they also say that everything happened all at roughly the same time - not drawn out.
1000 years is apparently not a lot of time at all - because we just spent 30,000 years finding out we could work together with the same level of intelligence! so a millenium is nothing! especially at such an early period of our development - its supposed to go on a slow steady course like we see everything else unless there was a reason for it - find technology, work out an imporant equation, something! - maybe they learnt to build proper houses or just officially created proper words - thats something that people can believe - but we're not given information like this - we're told that all of a sudden we're walking around with spears for 30,000yrs living like animals and then we just have this great idea to go out and cut out all these huge monolith stones and built a ridiculously huge monument (just to bury someone mind you) and we're supposed to believe that? i'm sorry but i need more than that or it just sounds like a fairy tale to me - unbelievable.

but thanks for the insight your theories have made more sense than any i've read yet.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


see everything you've mentioned about egypt i already know.

so we worked out that the factories werent for constructing the pyramids and the water saws weren't even in egypt!

and the only channels i watch are the science channel, nat geo, discovery, and history so we would have seen the same documentaries. yes its so much fun to watch that same old guy from the egyptologists - cant remember the name of them - who dont even know what they're talking about - they're supposed to be experts in the art and culture NOT geology or building - and they keep coming up with these stupid theories - like the sphinx was the best hahaha he said the lime stone was of such a bad quality that they had to add up to 3ft width of stone to repair the sphinx 300 yrs after it was first built! its obvious its water damage - any one can see that but they're arguing it when they have to right or credibility to even be their worry - they dont care about the truth they just want the tourism!
i've seen them use copper tools and sand and wire and all of those and i point out a hundred things wrong with it everytime i see it - everybody does - i'm surprised there are actually intelligent people that dont question this.
again i'm not saying we didnt build them but i need a better story than that!
and maybe i could believe that if we spent a few yrs maybe i could cut out a single stone of limestone - but it will never explain how we cut out granite at such an expertise they all aligned perfectly.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mamasita
 


If you want a beter story, you're welcome to it.
The Egyptians had the tools we've found, and they've been found to be effective.
What you are sure of, is find.
Personally, I've never been to Egypt. I have read a large number of psuedo Egyptological books that tend to skip over any points counter to theirs.
When it comes to Egyptologists, I've found that, much like any person in a specialized time period, they are required to know the various different types of construction and ways of construction their choice culture used.
When it comes to claiming water damage, I have seen the remarkable power of sand and wind when it comes to making formations in deserts. Many are comparable to erosion I've seen on water ways.
You, most likely, have no first hand knowledge. You have second or third hand knowledge, most fo which, as I've mentioned is brain candy.
Most of what ends up on TV is designed to be entertaining, Egyptology over all requires a lot of boring work to undestand, part of the reason why I stopped paying attention a while ago.
THe stories other people make up are far more interesting.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


thanks for the information on Nubia it was fascinating but really dont see why you gave it to me - it just justifies my whole arguement but anyway i got so many more questions - and i havent even researched it yet this is just on the doco i watched last nite:
so first of all something i found absolutely stupid - the nile where they done their trading - one part of it had sharp rocks so they would leave the water go by foot and resume the journey by water - now why didnt they just remove the rocks? of course they were too busy building tombs! of course! stop all trading have to build the "tombs"!




so has everyone noticed that the sphinx clearly portrays an african woman (and wat do you know - the nubia rulers seemed to be women - hardly surprising - black women are very mentally strong ppl)

they also had a god just like the egyptian and sumerian ones, so far they have one called Anu same as sumerians who apparently lived in the temple and everyday they would come in with water or milk for Anu and only he could knight people - where they would travel huge long distances for this ceremony. and everyday they would apply kohl around his eyes they try to replace this god with a statue but its obviously a living person.
they also had a completely different script at the same time that they say the gods taught them - just like genesis says about coming down and changing languages so no one could understand eachother.
and why were these different races acting so similar and basically having the same beliefs - you'd think in that day rascism would be at its worse!
i'm going to go research them now - so i'm sure i'm going to have plenty more questions - probally should start its own thread? i dont know the rules.



can i also point out the fact that the ziggernauts of mesopotamia look just like the temples of south america - and also the name its self is funny.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
i found the link of atlantis to mesopotamia! the chaldeans:

"he was represented in the Chaldean monuments as half man and half fish; he was described as the god, not of the rivers and seas, but of "the abyss"--to wit, the ocean. He it was who was said to have brought civilization and letters to the ancestors of the Assyrians. He clearly represented an ancient, maritime, civilized nation; he came from the ocean, and was associated with some land and people that had been destroyed by rain and inundations."
www.sacred-texts.com...

i found an interesting piece of information about the Sanskrit people of India believe they are the decendants of the Aryans of Atlantis. their language is related to one of the oldest known in iraq area and they are obvious in history because they are the so called "red-bearded man"

"Now it has been determined that there is no such thing scientifically speaking as Aryan and Dravidian races. The so-called Aryans and Dravidian races of India are members of the same Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian race, which prevailed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Sumeria and is still the main group in the Mediterranean area, North Africa, and the Middle East. The Caucasian race is not simply white but also contains dark skinned types. Skin color and race is another nineteenth century idea that has been recently discarded."
www.indiaforum.org...

not saying atlantis did exist but if it did it would explain so much of history and our dramatic rise in technology.

oh and i forgot to mention earlier about nubia - at the end they mentioned it is now where ethiopia is - how interesting i had ethiopia in my notebook to research as they have an interesting story of their creation too!
the more i get into this the more questions i end up with.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


well thats exactly why i'm here asking questions not preaching - i'm genuinely interested in this i'm not here to argue with anyone.
well see my last boyfriend who i'm still good friends with is egyptian and obviously his family is to - they used climb them as kids and his brother got back not so long ago and adam is goin next year and promised to take me lots of pics of exactly what i want because he knows how passionate i am about this subject. believe me if i can argue with egyptians about their heritage i can debate the subject with the best!

now again i read factual books - i love university field study guides best - i dont read pseodo science books besides cryptozoology - but thats a completely different subject! i read mostly books literally on facts - i always read a wide variety of books n research everything - i do know what i'm talking about i have looked into all this extensively since i was a kid in fact its only recently that i have actively questioned it all seriously - i've always been suss but never really looked into other theories.

hey you can edit - nice!
sorry i have read chariots of the gods - fantastic book -tried to read another of his books but he spent so much time defending himself about his religious beliefs i gave up on it.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by mamasita]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


no, i do not have first hand knowledge - of course i dont - but either do you. so therefore we have about the same expertise.
thank you but i own MANY documentaries on the age of the sphinx which are highly credible and are based on west's findings as well as geologists.
they show the sphinx's water damage compared to the sand damage on blocks from exactly the same layers and rock as the sphinx. its completely different! you cant look at this picture and say its sand blown:



whats the big deal if it is older? who cares?! if it is why can't they just accept it? dont know why eveyone is fighting new information so much. if we did start early doesnt that just give us as humans extra credibility?

if you have a theory thats fine but dont tell me your right when no ones exactly sure whats true.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


thanks for this i found the sites interesting, but do you know if they have actually tried this?
i have actually been into ancient egypt since i was a kid but after they kept changing their stories about how the pyramids were built so many times i just left it until a big news story came on with a definate theory.


Yes, and frequently. The methods work. There's been some Discovery channel programs and so forth showing moderns replicating the quarrying and polishing methods.

I'm also a science-documentary addict, so I know I've seen them within the past 5 years.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
...and, actually (if I may)


Originally posted by mamasita
... but after they kept changing their stories about how the pyramids were built so many times i just left it until a big news story came on with a definate theory.


Archaeologists haven't changed the idea of how the pyramids were built in a long time -- basically since the beginning of the time that they started serious excavations at Giza.

Now... the public and the pseudo-historians have changed their stories (and it seems like they changed it everytime someone wanted to bring out a new book (she says in a snide manner)) and changed them frequently. As to the archaeologists, they always knew:

It was attributed to Cheops
That one story has it being built in 20 years, but the information comes from a Greek historian who toured the place almost 1800 years after it was built so everyone took the time frame with a huge grain of salt
That the limestone was quarried there at Giza
That the people buried there have titles like "overseer of the king's building crew" and so forth
And the "ramp theory" of building the pyramids has been around for well over 40 years.
They've known for quite some time that it wasn't built by slaves.
They know where the granite comes from and among the documents around are messages saying that such-and-such amount of granite arrived as per the king's (pharaoh's) orders.

They recently found the remains of the ramp for the Great Pyramid... although there are pictures of workmen lifting stones into place using levers and brute force. There's pictures of the stones from the quarry being carried on sleds pulled by oxen.

But the news media doesn't go into a feeding frenzy over an archaeological find. You can read the news stories (or hunt the journal articles) if someone's saved them, but everyone's far more interested in Palin's wardrobe than the discovery that malaria was a problem in Egypt as far back as 3,500 years ago : dsc.discovery.com...

You've got to hunt for stories like that. It just ain't front page news.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
i found the link of atlantis to mesopotamia! the chaldeans:

"http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw203.htm



You need to doublecheck your sources. On the title page of that book (printed in 1889!!) is a link to commentaries about this antique book.

On this page it says "Furthermore, most of the linguistic evidence that Donnelly cites would not even stand up to 19th century methodology."
www.sacred-texts.com...

Other points about this very interesting but very old text are mentioned in the commentaries... had you gone to them, you would have found that he's a very unreliable (albeit interesting) source.


i found an interesting piece of information about the Sanskrit people of India believe they are the decendants of the Aryans of Atlantis. their language is related to one of the oldest known in iraq area and they are obvious in history because they are the so called "red-bearded man"



I'd like to suggest that you throw that source out. Sanskrit is an alphabet and a language... it's not a tribe or a people. A variety of people speak (and spoke) it: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
[ you cant look at this picture and say its sand blown:




Final comment... having lived in West Texas and traveled extensively to New Mexico and Arizona to study rock art, I can say "yep. Looks quite a bit like sand erosion on multiple layers of stone. "

Not my pix, but this is a tiny sample of the stuff I see in the deserts of the US: johnbokma.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
dont have enough time to reply properly yet but...

what about all the huge stones - how did they haul them?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mamasita
Theres no way ancient people went to all that effort with their primative tools - not to mention the fact that they all say they were there when they arrived.


However, I disagree and the evidence shows that I am far more likely to be right than you are.

Harte


how old are you anyway? hahaha thats the most immature response i've ever gotten!


Pardon me? I'm fifty two and there is nothing at all immature about pointing out that you've stated an opinion yet pretend that it is fact.

See?:


Originally posted by mamasita

NO! that is ridiculous! i will only depend on true facts - and there might not be that many but at least when i say something and say its a fact i mean its a fact


However, you also wrote:

Originally posted by mamasita
...what about all the pyramids all over the world? Theres no way ancient people went to all that effort with their primative tools - not to mention the fact that they all say they were there when they arrived.


Please present your evidence for this so-called "fact." I expect you must have this evidence right on hand. After all, you yourself claimed that when you "...say something and say its a fact..." you "... mean its a fact," or are you simply so full of yourself that you just can't recognize the difference between fact and opinion??


Harte



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
reply to post by Byrd
 


thanks for the information on Nubia it was fascinating but really dont see why you gave it to me -


Because the Nubians took over the pharaohship at one point and they also constructed pyramids as part of their symbols of rulership. They got them, of course, from the Egyptians and the cultural differences are quite interesting.
www.livius.org...

In any case, you mentioned something about "pyramids around the world" and some of the ones you cited were created at the time of the Nubian pharaohs.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamasita
dont have enough time to reply properly yet but...

what about all the huge stones - how did they haul them?


For the pyramids? There are pictures of them being pulled by oxen on sledges (pictures drawn by the Ancient Egyptians. (this is just a sledge with the block, and isn't AE but is based on material they found))
www.pereplet.ru...

They also built paved roads from their quarries:
query.nytimes.com...





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join