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.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?
It would seem probable then that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Giza monuments (most likely for their own cultural/religious ideas) but that the design for them came from another time and place - from another relatively advanced civilisation that is now lost to our history books. If we cannot credit the AEs with this level of advanced knowledge that is clearly on display, then we have to conclude that it came from some other source. We have to conclude that what we are looking at is evidence from a 'Lost Civilisation'.
Exactly right! However, I do believe that in the layout of the Giza pyramids, this (relatively) advanced 'Lost Civilisation' have demonstrated to us their very advanced grasp of mathematics and astronomy. We may never find their artefacts - but at Giza we can see their mind!
Have you since changed your mind due to a more thorough examination of the evidence? If so, I applaud your decision to reexamine the flaws in your original concepts.
Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Your argument is so generalized that it isn't argument at all...
I don't see how you are actually contributing to this thread. On the contrary, you are trying to use authority of some highly mystified "science" which reserves the right to prove nothing to anyone.
And science has assumed a role of inquisition in many cases, burying all those who come up with theories which are not supporting the "official" version. They simply don't get funds if their research can not be used by society to further on the existing oppression.
One of these days it will become known to everyone that there is no such thing as empty space between planets. It is all populated by living beings, invisible only to those who wear heavily restrictive oculars, dictated by the "unseen" authority. But, they are not really invisible, they're just transparent.
one of the oldest known examples of figurative art
Another archaeologist, Paul Mellars of the University of Cambridge, in England, agreed and went on to remark on the obvious. By modern standards, he said, the figurine’s blatant sexuality “could be seen as bordering on the pornographic.”
Scholars say the large caves were presumably inviting sanctuaries for populations of modern humans migrating then into Central and Western Europe. These were the people who eventually displaced the resident Neanderthals, around 30,000 years ago.
A greatly enlarged vulva emphasizes the “deliberate exaggeration” of the figurine’s sexual characteristics, Dr. Conard said.
And you think I speak in generalities? Over twenty years in a university environment informs me that what you say about Academe is more than simplistic, it is frighteningly narrow minded and aggressively ignorant. Sorry if I sound insulting...nothing personal, but your values are scary. If one is to deny ignorance, one must identify it as such.
SC: Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis? Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?
SC: Fact: The Earth was devastated by a series of cataclysmic events some 12,500 years ago.
Fact: Many animal and plant species disappeared at that time.
Tell me this is not where Plato (via Solon) obtained his original inspiration for his allegorical tale of Atlantis. It may have been allegorical to Plato but perhaps not for the first inhabitants of Ancient Egypt.The date the AE indicate in their Grand Precession Clock (that is the structures at Giza) concords incredibly well with the date Plato gives for the destruction of this island people.
SC: Explain clearly what you are referring to here. What evidence was "found wanting"?
SC: Complete rubbish! How can "parallel evolution" be in conflict with anything if you (and others) now see it as a possibility? If ONE cell can evolve and ultimately produce higher life forms, why is it not possible that two or more such cells could have done the very same?
SC: It's not deliberate. They just do not focus too much on anything beyond Menes. The AE civilisation goes many tens of thousands of years further back in time than Menes. The Edfu Building Texts tells us that.
Byrd: They weren't brimming with innumerable identical single celled organisms with identical DNA. This world isn't a giant petri dish. It was never a giant petri dish.
The first traces of life appear nearly 3.5 billion years ago, in the early Archaean. However, clearly identifiable fossils remain rare until the late Archaean, when stromatolites, layered mounds produced by the growth of microbial mats, become common in the rock record. Stromatolite diversity continued to increase through most of the Proterozoic. Until about 1 billion years ago, they flourished in shallow waters throughout the world.
Byrd: It rotates; so sometimes the sky is full of direct radiation (the sun is a very high radiation source) and sometimes it isn't. The moon was nearer, so tidal influences that were stronger swept over the area at different times of the day. The ocean floor was not a consistent depth, so currents existed in the environment.
Byrd: The minute one of those proto-bacteria got swept into another area, it would change.
Byrd: And the first proto-bacteria is now the mother of the second one, and the second one can spawn others... and so on and so forth.
Byrd: Those that make it to the poles or to the other side of the Earth... offspring of that first proto-bacteria.
SC: So, does it remain your view that only ONE of these cells in the Precambrian ocean managed to evolve, eventually resulting in all past and present plant and animal species on Earth?
Byrd: Yes. The world is not a huge petri dish. The minute its offspring got out of the area and into another area, they changed. They became many things, including many failed lineages.
SC: I have proved my case for a Giza-Orion connection (if that is what you are alluding to) far and above reasonable doubt.
Hans: Laughable Scott, as is your odd denial of not mentioning Atlantis. You did why not just admit that you did and move on?
Hans: You haven't proved your case at all. As you well know science is based on acceptance and consensus - so who supports your idea? Please list them? You haven't convinced any Egyptologists that I'm aware of or any Archaeologists. There are no peer reviewed papers supporting your theory. It is not discussed at conference - National Geographic haven't called have they? Yours is just another of the 700 or so failed theories about the pyramids. They lay littered around like the pieces of the L'Orient at Aboukir.
Hans: Self acceptance is not acceptance by the scientific community - now we both know you already know that so why the foolish statement above?
Hans: Please stop the silliness. All you have is an idea that fails because it lacks sufficient evidence. Full stop.
Hans: I consider the speculation about multi-evolution of more interest. Let your dead idea rest and move on.
SC: Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?
Byrd: You posted this as an opening statement in your own forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
SC: It would seem probable then that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Giza monuments (most likely for their own cultural/religious ideas) but that the design for them came from another time and place - from another relatively advanced civilisation that is now lost to our history books. If we cannot credit the AEs with this level of advanced knowledge that is clearly on display, then we have to conclude that it came from some other source. We have to conclude that what we are looking at is evidence from a 'Lost Civilisation'.
Byrd: Have you since changed your mind due to a more thorough examination of the evidence?
Byrd: If so, I applaud your decision to reexamine the flaws in your original concepts.
SC: Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis? Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?
Kandinsky: Done. Like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar...denial! Anyway, who cares? Moving on...
Kandinsky: Not 'fact' entirely...more provisional theories that may explain events in the Americas. Comet impacts etc. Interestingly, 12 500ka is always attached to Atlantis and Diluvial reasons for yet another civilization being clinically removed from the face of the Earth...
SC: Fact: Many animal and plant species disappeared at that time.
Kandinsky: I wonder how many have disappeared in our time?
SC: Explain clearly what you are referring to here. What evidence was "found wanting"?
Kandinsky: Your theory has fallen at the first hurdle. It isn't supported by convincing evidence. If it was -and you'll disagree here- we wouldn't be having the discussion. You'd be an honorary fellow with a book deal and a TV documentary.
Kandinsky: The lengthy extract from Graham Hancock is a post from a forum. Given the tone and language used, it could have been written by you. Wordy rhetoric and bombast n'est-ce pas?
SC: It's not deliberate. They just do not focus too much on anything beyond Menes. The AE civilisation goes many tens of thousands of years further back in time than Menes. The Edfu Building Texts tells us that.
Kandinksy: You'll need to provide a new definition of 'civilization' here. Tens of thousands of years? Truly a lost civilization..
It stands to reason then that if I consider the original AE version of the story as perhaps residing more in truth than myth then, by extension, I have to accept what Plato tells us because it’s my view that his writings were based on the original AE texts. Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
Lost Civilizations
I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.
I am not going to name names - livelihoods involved here.
Pre-Cambrian parallel evolution of a distinct species of tool using humanoid, subsequently extinct and erased from fossil record (including precursor fossils)? Sort of way out possible...remotely...
SC: It stands to reason then that if I consider the original AE version of the story as perhaps residing more in truth than myth then, by extension, I have to accept what Plato tells us because it’s my view that his writings were based on the original AE texts. Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
Kandinsky: This is the logic that has led you down the garden path and away with the fairies.
Kandinsky: You've added evidence to a conclusion.
Kandinsky: You've taken numerous facts and figures, taken them out of context and then used them to support a bizarre idea.
Kandinsky: The OP wondered about footprints being 1.3 million years old. They've been firmly planted 40ka. The 40ka has been supported by evidence supplied by reliable sources.
Kandinsky: It's around that point that the thread holds it's nose and plunges off the deep end...Following in the footsteps of such credible researchers as Von Daniken, Cremo, Thompson, Sitchin and Berlitz you use their arguments and techniques. The footprints are removed from their context and run through the wonderful 'what if?' machine. What if they actually are 1.3 million ya?
Kandinsky: Of those authors above all wanted money for personal or religious gain.
Kandinsky: So 'what if' they were 1.3million ya? Although it's clear they aren't...'what if? This leads us into a discussion on 'pre-Cambrian parallel evolution'.
Kandinsky: Fossil, genetic, evolutionary, ice-core and everything else does not show evidence for humanoids at that period in time.
Kandinsky: The only way to avoid sharing the 40ka conclusion is to invent a parallel evolution model and drag out the VSM strawman.
Kandinsky: If she was sorely used in the 70s, she's been utterly exploited to support ooparts, parallel evolution and anything else by you and the Cremo books. Funny how science is correct in Hueyatlico and so mistaken in the 40ka footprints in the same basin.
Kandinsky: Pre-Cambrian parallel evolution of a distinct species of tool using humanoid, subsequently extinct and erased from fossil record (including precursor fossils)? Sort of way out possible...remotely...
Kandinsky: Without this 'parallel evolution,' accepted models of history must remain and be adapted to new evidence. If they remain? Atlantis never happened. Lost civilizations didn't exist and what else? No codex falling from skies in either physical or allegorical sense. No Giza-Orion alignment. No warnings of cyclical cataclysms. Essentially, one more theory to be cast aside in the real search for knowledge. Even more, ten years of internet discussion made redundant.
Kandinsky: No glory and no booksales..
Kandinksy: I think your kidding yourself Scott.
I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.
I am not going to name names - livelihoods involved here.
JC: I mean, you can spew any ol' tripe and say "I'm right because somebody I can't name said something to me about it once." That's ok as a conversational observation, but serves no use in a debate.
I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.