Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ancient Human Metropolis Found in Africa

page: 11
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dallas18
 


Very good, just looked at this on google earth and did you notice the other 3 round balls, that look a bit like planets ??




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Well, for one opinion on the OP, I don't buy the whole Enki/Enlil/Niburu/gold idea. That was something conjured up by Sitchin, who, while an expert in deciphering Sumerian tablets, did go a bit afield...


Masqua,

You are mistaken here about Sitchin.

He has no ability whatsoever at translating cuneiform.

At least, he's repeatedly refused to demonstrate such an ability.

Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I've found a well-referenced dissertation on the 'Sitchin Situation' and have come to the same conclusion, Harte. Speculations abound where linguistics and sound science is lacking.

Here is the summary of it with my 'bolding':




The Mesopotamians may have been aware of the existence of all nine currently-discovered planets in our solar system.

They may also have been aware of the existence of a tenth (or to them 'twelfth') planet, which they called Nibiru - although there is minimal support for this in the literary works.

Sitchin’s theory of the creation of Earth, and of the role Nibiru supposedly played in it, is most certainly incorrect - both from a theoretical standpoint, and because it is far too literal an interpretation of the Epic of Creation.

An additional 'Planet X' may yet be proved to exist by modern astronomers who are searching for it based on theoretical evidence.

This planet has not been discovered as yet, and theories about its orbital properties vary widely. Therefore even if it is discovered it is highly unlikely to support Sitchin’s detailed theories.

If this planet exists, for it to remain undiscovered by modern technology it must have a highly eccentric orbit, or an extremely remote circular one. Either would dictate that human-like life could not have evolved and prospered there. It could not therefore be the 'planet of the gods'.



www.ianlawton.com...


The piece above is well worth reading in its entirety.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


So you are saying we should shoot the messenger for bringing attention to this intriguing site because you don't like the bio of the guy who is promoting this?

I have met more than my share of idiots with fancy degrees.

Here is a clue for you. The academic world is extremely political, and far too much credibility is often given to people who live in ivory towers.

We still don't know how old the Sphinx is. Academics claim it was built by the ancient Egyptians, ignoring the evidence of considerable water erosion, and the disproportionate size of the head.

Academics don't impress me either. They usually only endorse others after the accomplishments of those others can no longer be ignored without the academics loosing their own credibility.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


So you are saying we should shoot the messenger for bringing attention to this intriguing site because you don't like the bio of the guy who is promoting this?

I don't like it when his "bio" claims he can do something that he obviously cannot do.



Here is a clue for you. The academic world is extremely political, and far too much credibility is often given to people who live in ivory towers.

We still don't know how old the Sphinx is. Academics claim it was built by the ancient Egyptians, ignoring the evidence of considerable water erosion, and the disproportionate size of the head.

Thanks for the clue. Now here's one for you.

(Since you appear not to have such in your possession.)
Academics have not "ignored" either situation you mention. The truth is, you are not even remotely qualified to determine what caused any type of erosion anywhere on the planet, unless you yourself witness the erosion.

Others are so qualified.

Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by odyseusz
 


EXCEPT, In your circles the walls appear to be made from bush, not from stone.

Do you have any pictures that clearly depict villages inside of circular walls made of stone?

Are you saying that typical African villages have stone walls around them?

If these are so common, then there should be pictures of them all over Africa.

Here is an article that talks about how African villages are typically built.

They do mention these stone structures that this thread is about, stating that they were built from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries. Unfortunately I can't copy and paste a quote from the site, but this portion is on page 107

books.google.com...

From the "Encyclopedia of African history, Volume 1".

This source does not state where they came up with these dates for the construction of these sites. The only evidence offered is that Shona oral history states that these structures were occupied by farmers and herders, not that they were actually built by farmers and herders.

Something else you should know, this is a CONSPIRACY SITE. People come here to come up with all kinds of crazy theories, and to read all kinds of crazy theories.

 


removed faulty link - stretching page

[edit on 5/11/09 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 




Ah, so only the people with sheepskins adorned by people who live in ivory towers know what they are doing, and the rest of us are all a bunch of idiots?



Nobody has ever picked up a book, and learned how to do something on their own?

Because guy is an entertainer, he can't have any brains?

Oh well, why bother.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
My question is, if they were building these stone structures between the 12th and 15th centuries, why did they stop?

The slave trade didn't really take off until the seventeenth century, and was mainly in Western AFrica.

There had to be more than farmers and herders to build such structures. There had to be some people who mainly worked other crafts.

It seems that these stone structures are unique in sub-Saharan Africa, so who built them?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Regarding gold, my favorite rappers seems to talk about planet x harvesting gold for their atmosphere? before pre genesis? You take a look.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
According to Hopi and other ancient stories we have had 4 turnovers of a complete civilized world on Earth, now heading for the end of the 4th and starting a 5th.

I've seen and read reports of finding items during tunneling and excavations, only capable of a level of civilization such as ours, embedded in granite in places like the Sierra Nevada.

Granite is an igneous rock and is formed from magma. Granitic magma has many origins. Most granite is formed at great depth within the crust, usually greater than 1.5 kilometres and up to 50 km depth within thick continental crust. So, imagine how old such items of an intelligent origin could have possibly become embedded.

We have layers of ruins such as these all over the earth and under the earth below the oceans like found in Bimini we can only know their history through remote viewing or other psychic arts taking advantage of quantum sciences and non-locality.

ZG



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Ah, so only the people with sheepskins adorned by people who live in ivory towers know what they are doing, and the rest of us are all a bunch of idiots?

Okay, then what, precisely, do you know about erosion caused by water - and in particular, with limestone being the matrix?

Are you aware that the shape weathered limestone takes upon eroding depends to the greatest extent on the morphology of the limestone itself and not on the type of erosion?

Even Schoch admits this. That's why his date for the sphinx is not based on water erosion but on subsurface erosion caused by exposure to air.

Also, do you have any evidence that "Mainstream" Egyptologists have "ignored" any of this?

These were your claims, after all. I don't dispute you, I dispute your claims.

Don't make them if you don't really know what your talking about. Or, if you do make such claims, you should be prepared for others to dispute them.

Shouldn't you?

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


And exactly what is your expertise on erosion?

Clearly all rock erodes differently because of hard and soft areas.

Limestone is very susceptible to rain, because rain has a slight amount of carbonic acid which breaks down limestone.This stuff is easy to research.

Here is a good link on the subject.

www.perceptions.couk.com...


But mainstream 'science' ref 1 - so-called `Egyptology' - doesn't want any such discussion.

There is also a fundamental problem with the time-line of Egypt's civilization and technology. ref 2 It began at a peak of building skill, high ornamentation and durability of monuments, then for thousands of years it degenerated. The most recently built pyramids are no longer to be seen - they were so sloppily done that they've disintegrated.

You can see there is extensive water erosion of the Sphinx's body but not of the head. That erosion means thousands of years exposure to heavy rainfall.

From references below - Lubicz et al - we can see difference between typical wind erosion and the rainfall erosion seen on the Sphinx.


Here is another link.

www.sacredsites.com...


A much greater age for the Sphinx has been suggested by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, based upon geological considerations. Schwaller de Lubicz observed, and recent geologists (such as Robert Schoch, Professor of Geology at Boston University) have confirmed, that the extreme erosion on the body of the Sphinx could not be the result of wind and sand, as has been universally assumed, but rather was the result of water. Geologists agree that in the distant past Egypt was subjected to severe flooding. Wind erosion cannot take place when the body of the Sphinx is covered by sand, and the Sphinx has been in this condition for nearly all of the last five thousand years - since the alleged time of its 4th Dynasty construction. Furthermore, if wind-blown sand had indeed caused the deep erosion of the Sphinx, we would expect to find evidence of such erosion on other Egyptian monuments built of similar materials and exposed to the wind for a similar length of time. Yet the fact of the matter is, that even on structures that have had more exposure to the wind-blown sand, there are minimal effects of erosion, the sand having done little more than scour clean the surface of the dressed stones.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Well as soon as Google earth downloads I will definitely be looking this one up! That's awesome!



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
That is pretty cool! Now that I have google earth, moon, and mars im gonna be playing on it all night lol



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
If you put all 4 cördinates on at Google earth you'll see that they point as an arrow but the tip is missing, if you draw a line trough these points you'll end up in Old Zimbawe. there, mystery solved!



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
From my humble Christian perspective, it makes sense. When I first read the bible, I had a very hard time integrating Jesus' words that "...veryily some of this generation will see the return of Jesus..." The fact that his generation all died before he came back, negated his entire argument.
As I've grown older, I've come to believe that he was speaking of prehistoric generations that we never knew existed. This find, writings by Sitchin and other discoveries add strength to my opinion.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I could comment at length but a brief relevant point.

If this site can be accurately dated to 1,500 or even 1,5000 years ago no one would take note and there wouldd be no discussion here.

But claim it has been dated to 150,000 years ago and suddenly you have book contracts, videos, speaking appearances, tourism, etc.

Willfully or not, there is deception involved here. I expect this is yet another attempt to capitalize on the small sub-culture who believe in the fraudulent fantasies of Sitchin and his progeny.

It's tragic that the fields of anthropology and archeology are being hijacked by snake oil salesmen and the ignorant who line up to buy it.


M



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Harte
 


And exactly what is your expertise on erosion?

Clearly all rock erodes differently because of hard and soft areas.

Limestone is very susceptible to rain, because rain has a slight amount of carbonic acid which breaks down limestone.This stuff is easy to research.

Here is a good link on the subject.

www.perceptions.couk.com...


I maintain that you have no reason whatsoever to state that the Mainstream has "ignored" either of the subjects you claim.

As I stated, Schoch himself admits that one cannot date the sphinx using rainfall erosion and his method for dating the carving involves subsurface degradation of the stone due to exposure to the air, not to water.

You came back with something from an occultist.

I suggest you ask geologists about erosion and leave would-be alchemists out of it.

here's what a NY Times review of a book on de Lubicz had to say:


most of de Lubicz's theories were junk. His ''archeology'' at Luxor failed to take account of the ascertainable circumstances of the temple's building. His ''history'' was a farrago of nonsense about racial destiny and the secret histories of Templars, tarot cards and so on. His ''geography'' had space for a manmade Nile and a Sphinx up to its neck in seawater. His ''science'' was an ill-tempered polemic against Darwin and Einstein.


Now, you got anything else? Are you aware that Coline Reader and Mark Lehrner have both addressed this issue that you claim the Mainstream has "ignored?"

No more in this thread on this. There are plenty of threads here on the sphinx that you can consult to see why I'm right.

Harte



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


You're right?



Is that what it is all about? I thought we were talking about aging ancient stone structures.

Admittedly my first link is a bit shaky, I didn't spend a great deal of time on it, but my second link is from an anthropologist who has done a great deal of work for National Geographic, and the guy is certainly not an occultist.

Now de Lubicz could be called an occultist, but he has been to Egypt, and has done a great deal of research on the subject. How about you? I would certainly take his word over some guy who seems to think he knows it all. At least De Lubicz was the guy who pointed out the erosion of the sphinx in the first place, which got the whole debate on the subject going.

Back to my original point, we still don't know how old the Sphinx is, and it is one of the most studied structures on the planet. This is a fact of the situation.

By the way, you should learn to post a link to back up your claims.

From your own named reference.

www.gizabuildingproject.com...


With few exceptions, [2] standard Egyptological texts state that the Great Sphinx of Giza was built during the reign of Khafre (fourth ruler of the 4th Dynasty, OC - c. 2520-2494 BC). Over the last decade, however, much has been said and written to challenge this orthodox date, with some of the more credible articles focussing on the evidence provided by the limestones from which the Sphinx has been excavated. After over five years of research, it is my conviction that the geological evidence is not consistent with the attribution of the monument to Khafre or, for that matter, to any other pharaoh of the 4th Dynasty.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Who knows if the guy putting the information on these stone walls in southern Africa actually believes that humans were created aliens to work as slaves 150,000 years ago, or that he has jumped on the band wagon to make a buck. Personally, I don't care.

No one else seems to be pointing to these stone circles and saying, hey, what is this, and honestly I think he has stumbled upon something significant.

So if this guy manages to make a few bucks drawing the worlds attention to this site, all the power to him.






top topics



 
137
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join