Ancient Cities found under the ocean in India

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hello all,

If this has been discussed here before, I apologize and would wish the moderator to close this thread.

I recently came across this documentary called Underworld by Graham Hancock (yes I have some reservations about him, but please bear with me).

In it he discusses actual megalithic structures found underneath the Indian Ocean a few hundered km off the coast of India.

There are 2 reasons how this may have happen:

1. Ancient people could construct cities underwater, which is highly highly impossible and counter-productive (unless it was a pet project of some ancient politician like the "bridge to nowhere"
)

2. The city existed there before the cataclysmic floods depicted in every religion the world over.

This documentary discusses the discoveries of a possible pre-Egyptian civilization, and presents actual in your face proof of it all. He really does make you think outside of the box.

Now there are many Hancock bashers and believers out there. Please please put aside your opinions for a second and look at the facts that he does present.

Cheers

Here is Part 1 (the title is wierd on youtube, but I believe the actual docu is called Underworlds)

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Wherestheproof]




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wherestheproof
 


Or it was built when that area was above water *during the last Ice Age* and when those Glaciers melted the water added to the oceans sunk the city.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Actually the cities are found in the bedrock under the sea, so a melting glacier could not have caused that, plus building a city on ice would have sucked for agriculture. Atleast the cows would have given ice cream rather than milk lol



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wherestheproof
 


I didn't say they were built on glaciers.
And being at the bottom of a sea tends to get things buried in sediment rather quickly which later turns to rock.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
What facts does he present? Exactly who are the researchers? Where was the carbon dating done? Has there been an actual excavation of the site? Without answers to these questions and more there are no facts, just claims.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Umm yes...

When you watch the video, there are respected scientists who are currently working on this.

The discovery was an accident as a pair of ocean geologists were mapping the ocean and came across man made structures those could not have existed on thier own.

Some of these structures are also found in the Bahamas and off the florida keys too I believe.

Its an interesting video, hopefully I can have opinions on what people think.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wherestheproof
 

"Respected scientists" doesn't cut it. We need names. We need published papers. We need real facts, not claims of "man made structures".

I guess when you say you want opinions, you want people to go "ooh, aah", not to ask important questions.

[edit on 8/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
This is fascinating stuff. It seems to me that each single item discovered can be explained away as an anomaly of some sort, but altogether it appears that there was an advanced culture that existed 10,000 years ago or more. If that's the case, then archaeologists are going to have to rewrite a whole lot of their work.

I remember reading somewhere that the Sphinx in Egypt has erosion marks that suggest it also existed some 10,000 years ago. Archaeologists dismiss this, saying that Egyptian culture doesn't go back that far. Still, if it does (or if there was some previous culture), that again would require some re-examination of our conclusions.

Kind of makes me wonder how far back we really go, and how many cultures rose and fell. Did any of them get as far as this one? Are we, too, going to go under and be replaced by yet another culture?f



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wherestheproof
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Actually the cities are found in the bedrock under the sea, so a melting glacier could not have caused that, plus building a city on ice would have sucked for agriculture. Atleast the cows would have given ice cream rather than milk lol



The ocean levels were lower during the last ice age. That land was not glaciated. It was very hospitable. The last ice age did not mean the entire planet was frozen. During that period the ice caps were much larger with a very large percentage of Earths water frozen on land over most of the northern hemisphere. The oceans were as much as 150 feet lower than they are now which meant the coast lines were farther out then they are now.

The area in question is off the west coast of India. In this image from Google it would be the light blue area. The theoretical coast line would be at the farthest extend from the present day coast to the outer edge of the light blue area in this picture.



Which I find rather interesting when we consider that there has been no real evidence of stone age tool making in India. Then we have one of the worlds earliest civilizations show up along the Indus valley.

Complete speculation on my part.

But I wouldn't think it's too far off to consider a possible early stone age civilization that had to move inland as the oceans slowly rose to their present day levels and covered up any evidence of early stone age development.




[edit on 17-8-2009 by SLAYER69]


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Phage I know you are well respected here for your ability to be a perfect sceptic but you know as well as I do that ordinary citizens simply don't have access to or the time for such in depth research. Perhaps you could do it and report back instead of jumping so heavily on posters?

Generally,
Off the coast of Japan there is a large complex of man made structures being investigated by a Japanese university. Most of the really great finds there have been secreted away. I know this because one of my own contacts in research showed me some stealthily removed photos showing the street layouts and buildings carved from the rock.

I think there is much for us to find about ancient times, and I do think much of it would re-write what we call history if it was made public knowledge. As an example; there are things I know about through my mentor which are not publicly known but give great credence to the Sumerian Genesis tales.

There is another researcher I know in my country who has proof of many things but who is also suffering for it at the hands of those who would have him denigrated and proofs stolen.. which included some black sedans pulling up outside his house and four men in black suits broke in and set fire to it... he wasn't stupid enough to leave any artifacts and proofs in the house he lived in, so they are safe today.

Healthy scepticism is good in a a balanced way, one-eyed sceptisicm leads to nothing good.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 

I'm about as "ordinary" a citizen as they come. I work for a living. But why do you assume I haven't done some research? It isn't that difficult to find out about "Cambay City", but I could not find out who the "respected scientists" were or what they actually reported (respected scientists usually publish their work, in respected journals). I did find out who did the carbon dating but that the provenance of the samples was undetermined. I could not find out if anyone has actually dived on the site to verify the sonar imaging. That is why I asked the questions. I did find out that some radiometric dating of dredged material has been done but that what the material actually is (natural or artificial) is undetermined.

Was it wrong to ask the OP these questions? Why should the OP get a free ride by just posting a link to a video and asking for "opinions"? If I was a "debunker" I would have attacked the source of the video, I would have simply said "nonsense". But I like to have something at least to base an opinion on. I don't consider a single source, especially a video making unsubstantiated claims, to be sufficient to form an opinion.

All I did was ask a few questions about the evidence (which the OP referred to as "facts"). Instead of attacking my "one-eyed skepticism" maybe you should examine your acceptance of one sided claims.

[edit on 8/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

While it is possible that the site could have been exposed 9,500 years ago it is not certain. But let's assume it was. Let's also assume there actually was a city on the site and the inhabitants had to move as sea levels gradually rose. Why is there no other evidence of even village life until 6,000 years later and 200 miles away? If a migration was forced by rising sea levels why would it take 6,000 years? Why would the gradual rise in sea level (a global average of something like 1cm/year) have caused them to disappear completely?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wherestheproof
 


This documentary discusses the discoveries of a possible pre-Egyptian civilization, and presents actual in your face proof of it all. He really does make you think outside of the box.


There are already pre- Egypyian civilisations discovered, they where called Sumarians. Here's a piece out of Zecharia Sitchens book The 12th Planet-
"It was not only the first civilization in the true sense of the term. It was a most extensive civilization, all-encompassing, in many ways more advanced than the other ancient cultures that had followed it. It was undoubtedly the civilazation on which our own is based. Having begun using stone tools some 2,000,000 years earlier, Man achieved this unprecedented civilization in Sumer circa 3800 B.C. And the perplexing fact about this is that to this very day the scholars have no inkling to who the sumarians were, where they came from, and how and why their civilization appeared. For its apearance was sudden, unexpected and out of nowhere."
So I wouldn't be surprised if they found more. This is quite interesting, will be following this thread.

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wherestheproof
 


These 2 threads mite interest you incase you need to do more research

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just a good read though.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Can u see it with Google Earth? I found something similar on Google Earth. Here are the co-ordinates:

31°23'48.77" N 24°23'00.01" W

Eye Alt 384.15 km

This looks man-made to me!!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevcolx
Can u see it with Google Earth? I found something similar on Google Earth. Here are the co-ordinates:

31°23'48.77" N 24°23'00.01" W

Eye Alt 384.15 km

This looks man-made to me!!


That's Atlantis. That is not the Indian city. Wrong ocean.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jinx880101

There are already pre- Egypyian civilisations discovered, they where called Sumarians. Here's a piece out of Zecharia Sitchens book The 12th Planet-


Am I the only one who's left-eye starts to twitch as soon as someone brings up Sichin?


I hope something worthwhile comes out of this.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hey Phage thanks for your prompt reply to my U2U request.

I am looking into this subject as part of a much more in depth thread I'm in the middle of putting together that is related to my previous U2U messages to you. Having said that, I wont be giving the whole store away in this thread.

You made some very interesting observations but it doesn't really answer the question of it's possibility. If anything it adds to the mystery. I mean lets assume it happened the way I postulated then in that case it doesn't really conflict with your statements.

As you yourself asked where were they for the preceding 6.000 years? I postulate that there were early stone age megalithic sites. I wouldn't exactly call them cities but large settlements. Situated along or near those coast lines and they had to up root and move in land becuase the oceans slowly rose and covered them which may have happened in a combination of rapid large surges coupled with a slow progressive rise in ocean levels both scenarios could have happened within the time frame we are speaking of.

History of India

Isolated remains of Homo erectus in Hathnora in the Narmada Valley in Central India indicate that India might have been inhabited since at least the Middle Pleistocene era, somewhere between 200,000 to 500,000 years ago.[5][6] Most traces of the out of Africa migration along the shores of the Indian Ocean seem to have been lost. Due to flooding in the post-Ice Age period, recent finds in Tamil Nadu (at c. 75,000 years ago, before and after the explosion of the Toba volcano) indicate the presence of the first anatomically modern humans in the area.

The Mesolithic period in the Indian subcontinent covered a time span of around 25,000 years, starting around 30,000 years ago. More extensive settlement of the subcontinent occurred after the end of the last Ice Age, or approximately 12,000 years ago. The first confirmed permanent settlements appeared 9,000 years ago in the Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka in modern Madhya Pradesh, India.

Early Neolithic culture in South Asia is represented by the Mehrgarh findings (7000 BCE onwards) in present day Balochistan, Pakistan. Traces of a Neolithic culture have been found submerged in the Gulf of Khambat in India, radiocarbon dated to 7500 BCE.[7] The Edakkal Caves has one of the earliest exmples of stone age writing. Late Neolithic cultures sprang up in the Indus Valley region between 6000 and 2000 BCE and in southern India between 2800 and 1200 BCE.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Realize that the rising sea levels had been ongoing for 10,000 years before "Cambay City" may have been inundated. It would not have been an "OMG, here comes the ocean! We've gotta get out of here!" scenario. According to your theory, the gradual rise in sea levels (including the hypothesized "surges") would seem to preclude the construction of "Cambay City" at all. There would have been a more or less continuous retreat from the rising sea ("Dang, tide's up again. Time to pack up Ma.").

"Cambay City" is claimed to cover 10 square miles and consist of huge structures. That is a very far cry from the modified cave dwellings of Bhimbetka or the settlements of the Indus Valley.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Fair enough...

Well then as now, People and groups have developed at different speeds. Take NY, London or Tokyo for example and compare that to some of the primitive tribes that still exist in Africa and South America. Both exist in the year 2009 yet they are worlds apart as far as technological development.






top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join