12,008 AD: Discussion over Saint Peter's Basilica, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 17-12-2008 @ 10:04 PM by Hanslune
This post takes you to the year 12,008 AD, where we will speculate.....

The world we knew ended abruptly in 2025, disease wiped out 99.99% of mankind.

Much was lost, civilization was lost...


Now in 12,008 much has been recovered and an archaeologist of that time period is discussing with another person the dig at a city they think was called Rome. The imposing ruins of a Basilica stand before them.

Archaeologist: We think it was the burial place of a Saint Peter

Other person: No, no its the largest cathedral in the world, how could those people have built it when they had no engines? Its over 135 meters tall - when people were living in wooden huts, impossible it was built by aliens! Its not a tomb.

Archaeologist: Well yes it wasn't just a tomb it seemed to be the center of a whole series of temples and religious buildings. It was the largest of the four cathedrals.

Other person: No, no it had no religious function. It was a focus of ley lines for concentrating energy for immortality. The aliens built it.

Archaeology: Ah, well no, we found inscriptions in it, TV ES PETRVS ET SVPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM. TIBI DABO CLAVES REGNI CAELORVM...which means

Other person: No, no that was added by archaeologists to bloister their claims. They are fake, It was made by aliens

Archaeology: I don't think so, we have C14 dates from materials we've found in the ruins, including the burial of this Saint Peter, they go from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Other person: You see, you see those dates are inaccurate. The basilica was made over 20,000 years ago, by aliens

Archaeologist: How do you know that?

Other person: It was channeled, we know it was built by aliens also because of the shape.

Archaelogists: Its shape? It in the form of a cross - which in the ancient religion the cross......

Other person: No, no the religion doesn't matter, we never consider that. Its shape is that of the star pattern known as the southern cross.

Archaeologists: Ah, you cannot see the southern cross from here why would they build it to look like a star pattern they couldn't see?

Other person: Crustal shift, yes, yes, the whole world shifted

Archaeologists: Well Saint Peter......

Other person: There is no Saint Peter, there was no burial here.

Archaeologist: There is a tomb

Other person: Was their a body in it?

Archaeologist: Well no, it had been looted and destroyed, but there was a sarcophagus.

Other person: Nope, No body no tomb - why would anyone bury someone in the worlds most perfect building, nope not a tomb....It must have taken twenty thousand guys forever to build this thing. look at the math involved!


To be continued


reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 11:42 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by JaneFonda



Howdy Jane

Actually a Cathedral is far far more difficult to make. The Ancient Egyptians couldn't have gotten close. Arches and domes were not possible for them. The Egyptian did rather crude work very, very well and they did a lot of it.

The basilica is a remarkable piece of work, and ten thousand years from now it could be considered something which it is not.


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 12:29 AM by JaneFonda
ok... but being interpreted differently and means of construction are two very different things. Tell me... how could ancient Romans lift and move 1,000 + stones? When modern cranes can only hoist 1,000 tons and remain stationary??



also, what do arches and domes have to do with anything? Big whoop, arches were around looong before Cathedrals were built. When something is built that shouldn't exist given the technology of the time period, I question the construction methods the history channel says, thats all i'm saying

[edit on 18-12-2008 by JaneFonda]



reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 12:43 AM by serbsta
Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to
post by JaneFonda



Howdy Jane

Actually a Cathedral is far far more difficult to make. The Ancient Egyptians couldn't have gotten close. Arches and domes were not possible for them. The Egyptian did rather crude work very, very well and they did a lot of it.

The basilica is a remarkable piece of work, and ten thousand years from now it could be considered something which it is not.



I highly doubt the Cathedral was more difficult to make than the Pyramids at the Giza Necropolis. One only has to look at how theyre systemically aligned to constellations, how each stone is tuned to the rhythm of the human heart... i could go on and on.

But like someone else said, i dont think the Basically could survive 10000 years without human help.


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 12:51 AM by Hanslune

ok... but being interpreted differently and means of construction are two very different things.


Hans: Not in a thread that is meant to be facetiously.



Tell me... how could ancient Romans lift and move 1,000 + stones?


Hans: Very slowly and the heaviest they moved were at Baalbek and those were only 800 tons. The big one they didn't try.


When modern cranes can only hoist 1,000 tons and remain stationary??


Hans: Not really modern cranes can lift far heavier loads and also move. A CC8800-1 Twin is both mobile and can carry 3,200 tons. LAMPSON'S TRANIS-LIFT Series II A can pick up 4,000. Others stationary cranes can pick up much more.

external image

Hans: Your link doesn't seem to work



also, what do arches and domes have to do with anything?


Hans: Its call architecture. Big empty spaces are more useful that a big block of stone. You can get 60,000 people into St Peters - maybe two hundred + inside the pyramid



Big whoop, arches were around looong before Cathedrals were built.


Hans: Yes but the Egyptians didn't know how to make them, just corbel arches. True arches show sophisticated planning and design. Remember the limestone blocks in the pyramid were 'cut' out using stones to bash trenches between them, not particularly a smart way to do it.


When something is built that shouldn't exist given the technology of the time period, I question the construction methods the history channel says, thats all i'm saying


Hans: I understand you, but the reason you think that is because you've been told to believe it by fringe writers, it just isn't true.


[edit on 18/12/08 by Hanslune]


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 10:06 AM by Hanslune
Continuing from above


Other Person: Well yes we have lots of evidence of these ancient people who helped to build the basilica - helped by the aliens of course.

Archaeologist: Indeed


Other person: Yes there is tons of evidence but it is all being supressed.

Archaeologist: Supressed? By who?

Other person: You are - the whole scientific community, you are hiding the evidence from us.

Archaeologist: What are you nuts?

Other person: You see the mocking! The not taking us serious, the ridicule!

Archaeology: Okay, okay give me the evidence that the entire scientific community is involved in this, who is head of this conspiracy? When did it start?

Other person: Well, ah, I don't know, but you can see how every piece of evidence we find is debunked immediately. The media makes fun of us and ...

Archaeologist: That happens because the evidence is weak, not compelling, misinterpreted or just not what you think it is.

Other person: No, no its great evidence it proves everything, its just you guys won't believe it.

Archaeologist: So tell me about your best piece of evidence.

Other Person: The basilica itself.

Archaeologist: How is that?

Other Person: It was built first, and is the biggest and best, it cannot have been made by men, its all made of Granite and Marble - look at the details. All the other Cathedrals are poor copies of it.

Archaeologist: Hmmmmm, no. The Basilica wa built after a long history of development, yes it is the largest but the builders had centuries of practice in building before they took it on.

Other Person: Then why didn't they build bigger and better ones? Today we couldn't possibly build this Basilica, it is way beyond of technology.

Archaeology: We could build such a project but why? We don't beleive in the religion that drove this construction.

Other Person: You see, you cannot explain why they built only one. It was aliens, it was there landing zone marker.

Archaeologist: 'Landing zone' but you said earlier it was an energy...

Other Person: We allow for multiple realities, the only important consideration is to accept that the Basilica wasn't made by men, it was aliens.

Archaeologist: How can you support having different theories for the origin of the same object?

Other Person: We don't judge, we are open minded.

Archaeologist: Indeed?

To be continued


reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 10:36 AM by Hanslune
reply to post by DantesLost



What is more amazing is that the ability to eat and digest cow milk arose out of (probably) a recent mutation and somebody retried milk at some point and found it could be good. Most of the Asian population still cannot eat it (note the lack of cheese products in Asian food).
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 3 days ago with 80 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags