Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mysterious Alignment of Ancient Sites of the World

page: 1
101
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+57 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Hello everyone, this is my first thread, so go easy on me.

This isn’t another “I had a dream” threads, but I feel like I should explain some background as to why I found this information striking. I had a dream a couple of nights ago about moving to Alaska, it wasn’t normal landscapes either, more like “heavenly”. It was just a feeling of calm and happiness. It was weird because somehow I KNEW it was Alaska, that feeling stuck until today I found this very intriguing piece of information:

The ancient landmarks, for a lack of a better word, are lined up in a great circle, and the lines cross at a point in Alaska.



Here’s the link I found it at, its all the way at the bottom.
Here

I wanted to examine the area around that point, but that map is way too small. So I put in all the points in Google Earth and tried to draw the lines across. I don’t think there’s a way to draw a perfect circle so the accuracy is off somewhat.






I’m still trying to figure out what’s so important with that area. I used the star function as well and the general area is surrounded by these constellations:




Cassiopeia
-n Greek mythology it was considered to represent the vain queen Cassiopeia, who boasted about her unrivaled beauty
Perseus
-was the first of the mythic heroes of Greek mythology whose exploits in defeating various archaic monsters provided the founding myths in the cult of the Twelve Olympians.


But the biggest find was the Mothership sightings of 1996. Over 22 people witnessed a UFO “larger than a football stadium.” And guess where this happened? Yep. Right in that same area.



Calling that UFO “football stadium size” is being conservative. Estimates range from 0.88 km (0.55 miles) to 1.8 km (1.1 miles) in length.

Rest of story

And thats not the only incident in that area.

Check out the Tagish Lake sighting from 1986, also within the area of error of my point of convergence. Here



So what does it all mean? Thats what I want to find out. I was curious what everyone else thinks about this or have heard anything in addition.


ALSO: Look at this site. It really explains everything a lot clearer.




[edit on 21-9-2009 by afterschoolfun]




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
great amazing thread.
This is something that never strays far from my mind for to long.
Its to much coincidence


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
The ancient landmarks, for a lack of a better word, are lined up in a great circle, and the lines cross at a point in Alaska.

What is your logic for cherry picking the "ancient landmarks" just so that it fits your circle, if I may ask?

Just curious. I really see nothing strange with drawing a circle around the warmer regions of the earth (ie near the equator) where many of the earliest civilizations started.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by merka]


+6 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


and it's just by coincidence that the Giza Pyramids, the Siwa Oasis, the Pyramids of Paratoari, Ollantaytambo, Machu Picchu, the Nazca Lines, Easter Island, the Preah Vihear Temple, The Ancient Ruins Of Sukhothai Thailand, Pyay ruins in Burma, Khajuraho, Mohenjo Daro, Persepolis, Ur (ancient Mesopotamia), Petra

are ALL within .1 of a degree latitude? How is that cherry picking? They're there, they line up, something is up.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Awesome first thread! you have done something I thought I would
get around to doing long ago yet never did. And you came up
with some very interesting things. Well done! S&F.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I think merka has a point - civilization flourished near the equator - so why shouldn't the majority of anicent sites all be in this same line? That's like saying most towns in Scotland were started in river bends and therefore it's a conspiracy.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by suicide__x
 


Not really. Your cities on the river example is not the same at all. We're not talking about a island, this is the whole world, spanning thousands of years. There's something that drew them to build giant monuments on that line.

Take Easter island, it fits perfectly on this line. But I suppose it's just another coincidence. There seems to be a lot of that these days...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Although I believe this is nothing more than a coincidence, I will keep an open mind to the possibility that you might be on to something.

I went "googling" for some information regarding any ancient civilization that existed in Alaska, and I found out this:
peaceandloveism.com...

the little-known Ipiutak civilization of Alaska, who are believed by some to be the first inhabitants of Alaska.

according to the information I found, not much is really known about them, and there is a possibility that remnants of this ancient culture lay hidden beneath the ice and snow.

here's more info about them:
www.cinoa.org...

books.google.com... n&ei=rwC4Sum7PILesgPCl5DRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Ipiutak%20civilization&f=false

(sorry for the long URL)

wikimapia.org...

and:
www.time.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by afterschoolfun
 


But it is the same, just on a bigger scale.
It was the protection of the river that led them to build cities there.
It's the warmth and ease of the equator that led them to build their lives there, which happen to include monuments etc.

I agree, there are too many coincidences, but I'm afraid as far as I'm concerned, this is neither coincidence or conspiracy. It's just plain common sense.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
yes .. great post

theres something about these pyramides



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Despite what the others say, I think you have found something very interesting. It still needs more investigation IMO.

It may very well be coincidence, but it could just as likely be "conspiracy". The equator did provide a suitable building ground for ancient civilisations. I just find it striking that all around the globe these monuments are linked so closely together.

S&F


A2D



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
The equator did provide a suitable building ground for ancient civilisations. I just find it striking that all around the globe these monuments are linked so closely together.


Your first and second sentences there should be enough to convince you. If you believe the equater provided a suitable building ground for ancient civilisations, then it makes sense that the monuments would be on or near the equator too!



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
reply to post by merka
 


... ALL within .1 of a degree latitude? How is that cherry picking? They're there, they line up, something is up.


Dunno... Pumapunku isn't in your list and it's at 16°33'40.98"S. That's quite a bit more 0.1 degree off.

I guess it doesn't qualify.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This website goes on to explain the "great circle" in great detail

THE PREHISTORIC ALIGNMENT OF WORLD WONDERS

It's an interesting observation, but it does leave a number of important ancient sites excluded, like any of the sites in the Levant, Stonehenge in GB, and all of mesoamerica (just to name a few).

The relationship of the "golden section" as applied to several of the sites is also interesting, but again, if given enough "dots" in a line, you can infer all sorts of numerical relationships, unintended or not.

I'd love to see this explored more thoroughly, although I found that sites promoting this connection strayed too far into crackpot theories, for instance trying to connect a modern city like San Francisco into the "secondary alignments", as though it's founder was privy to some arcane and secret past knowledge.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
It seems that they just drew a circle and picked sites that fit on the circle.

There are a number of sites that are not included for no discernible reason.
Besides which, at that scale they can be off by several miles and not be able to tell.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by afterschoolfun
 


Take Easter island, it fits perfectly on this line. But I suppose it's just another coincidence. There seems to be a lot of that these days...

You're right. The settlers of Rapa Nui could have chosen any one of dozens of islands in that part of the Pacific. I wonder what was so special about that one (there aren't any others). You're not suggesting that the island itself is artificial are you?

It is kind of interesting but there is just too much selective use of data.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by afterschoolfun
 


Thank you brother for your research, enthusiasm and inquisitive mind.
I love delving into this stuff, but unfortunately a lot of ATS threads regarding similar findings are as you said "dreams" or just speculation where the OP wants flags and stars while getting the rest of the board to do their research for them.

Your post is a breath of fresh air as of late....So, s+F, thanks again.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Since the links I offered were all over the place, here is a link that puts some of the information about the Ipiutak culture in a more orderly fashion.

explorenorth.com...

this link was indirectly available in one of my earlier sources, but I believe it would be better to have it as a direct source instead.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 



It seems that they just drew a circle and picked sites that fit on the circle.

There are a number of sites that are not included for no discernible reason.
Besides which, at that scale they can be off by several miles and not be able to tell.


Exactly, they used a liberal scale when declaring something part of the "great circle". I suppose a 1% error (as they claim) is tolerable over those kinds of distances.

This theory does get more involved than just a line drawn through sites. The distances are also given for select sites as a relationship of the golden section.
home.hiwaay.net...
He doesn't state a source for his measurements of distances, meaning they could be fudged ever so slightly to fit the theory, and if that's the case, the theory is bunk.

Author Umberto Eco wrote a chapter in one of his books (Foucault's pendulum) where he presents an amazing tour de force of numerology, utilizing numerical relationships of a work of mankind to connect seemingly unrelated bits of the universe in a cosmic way. When you get to the end of the paragraph he reveals the source of the numerological wonder to not be the pyramids, or Stonehenge, or Atlantis, but rather a plain, mundane newspaper stand. That's when you realize numerology might be bunk.

That's what this theory tends to smack of, numerology taken a bit too far.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a science is validated when it can be used to predict the result of actions.

finding undiscovered sites along that line would validate the theory.






top topics



 
101
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join