Earths Forbidden Secrets, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 117 times


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 09:11 AM by geolancer
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



Thank you Max , awesome read , i'm still on the earlier pages and i'm totally addicted to it, very well put together.

hope you get your id back on ats forum here. i just asked for password recovery just now (i forgot mine as well xd) anywho , Thanks a lot for hard work
back to readin


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 02:15 PM by Lasheic
I haven't read the book, as I really don't get the impression that it's any different than any of the other "hidden histories" books which reject actual research and findings (much of which leads to the conclusion of mistranslations, misinterpretations, or outright hoaxes), and instead like to speculate without much evidence to back them up.

I did, however, watch the video series - which only furthered this perception (lawl @ fossils fuels not being organic in origin). I would like to comment that many of the "anomalies" he presents as being completely ignored by academia are actually being intensely scrutinized. Albeit, they are not coming to the same conclusions as some of the more fringe speculators are. For instance, in the video he mentions the Antikythera mechanism and how it must have been machined with complex lathes and tools. This, actually, doesn't appear to be the case at all. Nor is it anywhere close to being more complicated than anything we currently have today. (and it was not used for navigation either) While an extremely impressive device, clockwork/geared devices weren't unheard of back then - even if this one was more sophisticated than we once realized. The device has been linked to Archimedes, or at least an improvement on his designs, and considering scope of his genius - it's not hard (at least for me) to imagine that he could have concocted such a device. After all, this is the same man who purportedly built a crane to hoist enemy ships out of the bay and set them on fire.

Scientists have not been ignoring these anomalies. In fact, one researcher has recently built a reconstruction of the device.


New Scientist - Archimedes and the 2000 year old Computer

Yes, the ancients were much more advanced than we often give them credit for - but it doesn't support the propositions supported by many in the conspiracy community, and the information certainly isn't being kept from us. It's all out there for you to peruse, should you know where and have the ambition to look.

Also... in the video he made mention of Romans using concrete. This is true, however, they did not build their temples out of concrete. Recent discoveries of maritime shipwrecks in the Mediterranean by Dr. Robert Ballard revealed a Roman ship that sunk around the first century AD carrying part of a prefabricated Roman Temple. It was not constructed out of concrete, but rather of some very large, and VERY heavy cut stone, of which everything onboard and ready for delivery and construction on-site. So not only did they have a method for simply lifting these extermely stones - they had sophisticated methods of transporting them across the ancient world.


NYTimes


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 04:32 PM by geolancer
Hi Max , i'm on Page62 about "The Colorado Pavement" , and come across this one , updated one from 2005 , is that true ? >> www.gjsentinel.com...

just wanted to ask and see what you think because i know you wrote this book quite a few years ago. Thank you so much again. cheers



reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 05:09 PM by squiz
I'm sorry guys but the video of the guy moving those blocks does not answer the mystery, those blocks are tinker toys compared to Baalbek.
You also have to ask why bother making such massive stones, why not just do what the Romans did and use much more manageable stones? and yes the Romans were known to move some pretty awesome stones but nothing like these. This would easily crush any wooden rollers. Even today this poses some interesting engineering problems.



In 1996, I posed the problem of the Baalbek stones to Baldwins Industrial Services - one of the leading crane hire companies in Britain. I asked them how they might attempt to move the 1,000-ton Stone of the South and place it at the same height as the Trilithon.

Although it is sometimes claimed that modern cranes cannot lift stones as heavy as 800-tons,[9] this is actually incorrect. Bob MacGrain, the Technical Director of Baldwins, confirmed that there were several mobile cranes that could lift and place the 1,000-ton stone on a support structure 20 feet high. Baldwins themselves operate a 1,200 ton capacity Gottwald AK912 strut jib crane,[10] whilst other companies operate cranes which can lift 2,000 tons. Unfortunately, however, these cranes do not have the capability to actually move whilst carrying such heavy loads.

How, then, might we transport the Stone of the South to the Baalbek acropolis?

Baldwins suggested two possibilities. The first would use a 1,000-ton capacity crane fitted with crawler tracks. The disadvantage of this method would be the need for massive ground preparation works - to provide a solid, level roadway for the crane to move.

The alternative to a crane would be a series of modular hydraulic trailers, combined to create a massive load carrying platform. These trailers raise and lower their loads using hydraulic cylinders built into their suspension. The initial lift at the quarry would be achieved by the use of a cut-out section beneath the stone, which the trailer would drive into. The final positioning in the wall, at a height of 20 feet, would be achieved by using an earth ramp.


www.world-mysteries.com...


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 05:27 PM by Lasheic
Ok.. I broke down.. I had to read a bit of the book, and then... I just had to comment on this.

Why.... Wwhhhhyyyyyyy is it always the Bananas!?!?!

As if Ray Comfort's "Atheist Nightmare" wasn't enough, this guy has to fall into the same (hilarious) pitfall. You'd think if you're going to try to go against the establishment, you'd stay away from Bananas. It's almost cartoonishly funny to watch them slip on the peel every time.

The fruit he mentions, that millions of people eat, are yes - INDEED - fruits... and they are only one species out of many. The ones people eat don't have seeds because they have been cultivated that way for thousands of years. The only way for them to propagate is by growing shoots taken off of the main plant, but this leads to poor genetic variability - which is why fungus and disease is such a major concern among growers. A particularly virulent outbreak could cause the the Cavendish banana to become extinct. This is why a similar species, the Gros Michel (Big Mike), was phased out in the 1950's when it was found that they were particularly susceptible to Panama disease.

Bananas are not found all over the world, at least, not where humans do not specifically cultivate them. Wild bananas (the non-human cultivated) DO contain very large and tough seeds. They do not provide all of the necessary nutrients for a healthy diet - that is just ludicrous.

I just don't get why this guy would add such a section to his book, with obviously no research, when it only ever serves to completely discredit him. I mean... it's just comical. How can you take his word for ANYTHING he says in that .pdf file when you know THIS is the kind of sloppy material he's slapping together.

Banana
Cavendish Banana
Big Mike Banana
Wild-Type Banana
Fruit

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Lasheic]



reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 11:17 PM by truthseeker9991
reply to post by Mutant



yea i looked up dropa online and nothing showed up i was curious and wanted to see pictures. Wat institutes dont exist



reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 05:56 AM by 0010110011101
reply to post by Lasheic



To your bananas post!

I have read about half of this book and I have to say that the content is very interesting and is put together well.

I also like the way (as previously stated) that the author doesn't intstruct you to believe his theories blindly but suggests you look at the evidence for yourself.

That said, for some of the gems that are contained within, there is also some nonsense. The bananas section being the crowning glory! The irony is that it's only a half page paragrpah that could have easily been ommited in order to avoid you having to question the rest of his content.


reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 07:57 AM by Lasheic
reply to post by 0010110011101




I also like the way (as previously stated) that the author doesn't intstruct you to believe his theories blindly but suggests you look at the evidence for yourself.


I'm sorry, but to me, that is completely fraudulent. Does this mean I can write a book filled to the brim with all sorts of lies and perpetuated misconceptions - just so long as I say "Do the research yourself"? Of course not. In these matters, it's not up to the reader to make the case for the author. It's up to the author to make their case to the reader. He should present the evidence himself, of the claim he's trying to support - and then provide external references to show the work he has done/researched which lead him to his conclusion.

You NEVER hear a scientist, archeologist, paleontologist, physicist, biologist, or even a professional journalist or new anchor make that claim. Ever wonder why?

Every time I hear the words "Don't take my word for it, do your own research and come to your own conclusions", I start reaching for my wallet - because I know a scam or a hoax is being perpetrated. It's only a "CYOA" (Cover Your own ---) statement allowing the author to make whatever baseless and speculative claims they want without regard to evidence or accuracy. By trying to turn facts and evidence into matters of opinion or interpretation, they are essentially shielding themselves from the possibility of ever being held accountable for their misdirection and outright lies.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Lasheic]


reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 08:16 AM by 0010110011101
reply to post by Lasheic



I dont disagree with what you are saying. However, the point that I was trying to make is that he is not claiming that all this evidence is 100% factually accurate and he is certainly not suggessting you take all his theorum as read without looking into the data yourself. He is putting forward an idea for basis of discussion and research.

I appreciate your stance and I can see the validity in your argument, however, as a piece of lterature I found it interesting. That doesn't mean that I am going to believe all or indeed any of it's contents without rational analysis.

Are there many other major theories or areas of contents within the book that you know to be false or misleading?
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^