Ancient Human Metropolis Found in Africa

has this site been radio carbon dated yet?

as far as im aware of it is the best method of dating that we have.

until then, i would say speculate all you want, but dont let tempers flare of what only may be.

reply to post by BlesUTP


You can't carbon date stones, only organic materials. This is why stone structures are hard to date.

This is why people look at erosion, and other factors. Signs of possible organic materials that might have been used to build the structures, things like that.

Apparently, there is an enclosure with high walls that is believed to have once been a palace and a temple. It seems that this would be the place where clues as to when these structures were built, and by whom.

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

There is a movie called Idiocracy...and it nicely extrapolates the devolution of society brought on by mistaking pop-culture for science.

There has to be a base-line comprised of what our knowledge base says is true. For that to change should require a very high standard of evidence, otherwise you get whole lines of thought based upon flawed assumptions.

Academics may be protective of their pet theories, but they respond to change by saying two simple words: Prove It. And the Young Turks? They set about doing do...to make their own marks. It's a slow process, but it works pretty well.

Oh, so if an entertainer reads a book...even two...and wants to do a little brain surgery on you - you up for that? I mean, "Nobody has ever picked up a book, and learned how to do something on their own?"

Don't support the burgeoning Idiocracy...your kids will say thanks.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


And it often takes several years to prove anything. Somebody comes up with a wild guess about something, and if it seems possible, they then begin to gather evidence, conduct tests. There have been more than a few times that someone outside of academia comes up with the idea that is proven to be correct, which is why it is not very intelligent to ignore peoples ideas just because they don't have some specific background. I provided a good example of this a few posts ago.

As far as pop science goes, it will always exist, along with science fiction, fantasy, and conspiracy theories. Personally I think these types of imaginative thinking is good, and contributes a great deal to society.

When academics start dismissing everyone that comes up with an idea outside of their conceived notions, because of who they are, as opposed to the merits of the idea, then they become far worse than some guy in Africa speculating that he might have found some ancient civilization that completely rewrites the record book.

This clearly isn't brain surgery, but I would only get brain surgery if I absolutely had to do it, and I would trust the guy with the best track record of successful surgeries over the guy who got the highest grade point average in school. How about you?

Originally posted by poet1b
There have been more than a few times that someone outside of academia comes up with the idea that is proven to be correct,

Without specific examples, this is brain masturbation and completely dismissable.

Originally posted by poet1b
When academics start dismissing everyone that comes up with an idea outside of their conceived notions, because of who they are, as opposed to the merits of the idea, then they become far worse than some guy in Africa speculating that he might have found some ancient civilization that completely rewrites the record book.

Again, without examples, this is pure blather.

Straw men are quite easy to knock down, aren't they?

Originally posted by poet1bThis clearly isn't brain surgery, but I would only get brain surgery if I absolutely had to do it, and I would trust the guy with the best track record of successful surgeries over the guy who got the highest grade point average in school.

This is exactly the same as saying you would trust one archaeologist over another archaeologist.

No problem there, I'm sure.

So, who's theory is this one about the kraals in Africa? Which archaeologist?

Harte

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

And it often takes several years to prove anything. Somebody comes up with a wild guess about something, and if it seems possible, they then begin to gather evidence, conduct tests.

Certainly...you won't hear me argue that good ideas don't come from the fringes...then you've gotta prove it, which is why you have cadres of busy young PhDs all over creation trying to change the paradigm and have their name attached to the new one.

As far as pop science goes, it will always exist, along with science fiction, fantasy, and conspiracy theories. Personally I think these types of imaginative thinking is good, and contributes a great deal to society.

Sure...but as good as it gets, you can't mistake it for science.

When academics start dismissing everyone that comes up with an idea outside of their conceived notions, because of who they are, as opposed to the merits of the idea, then they become far worse than some guy in Africa speculating that he might have found some ancient civilization that completely rewrites the record book.

I've spent a long time as a laymen in an academic environment, and only the patently absurd is dismissed out of hand...the rest is open to be proven. But until it is...it ain't.

This clearly isn't brain surgery, but I would only get brain surgery if I absolutely had to do it, and I would trust the guy with the best track record of successful surgeries over the guy who got the highest grade point average in school. How about you?

Indeed, but it is science, and if it's a matter of entertaining a mechanic vs a brain surgeon...both highly skilled...I'd go with the appropriate specialist, thanks.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

The old testament itself tells us that the first civilization was in Africa. Many cultures around the world tell of a Great Flood. To me it is no big thing that they claim this to be true when I have believed this for years and years. I do have a problem with the translation and added speculative theories on the ancient text that ZS did. If you read the second part of the story referenced from the first page as materiel backing up these claims, they seems to read more like myth than anything that can be corroborated by other ancient documents or archeological findings. I question the accuracy of ZS's translation.

www.viewzone.com...

Of course if these beings were real they were not gods as we understand gods. but to the ancients they could have been perceived as such. However most of the time when we have great stories of ancient history like the flood story we have many cultures that tell of the same story. This is not the case with this story and this story is so detailed.. I dunno it just makes it seem suspect to me.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Good ideas come from all kinds of place. Having worked several years in R&D in the worlds capital of technology, I have experienced this first hand. The people that make things happen are the ones who ignore the source, and concentrate on the merit of ideas being presented.

I highly doubt this site is as old as reported, but I think this site has merit, and should be looked at and considered as important, irregardless of who is getting the story out there.

It is a waste of time to attack the source. Do you have any comments, or anything to add about this site that the thread is about?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

It is a waste of time to attack the source. Do you have any comments, or anything to add about this site that the thread is about?

I have not been to the site. Therefore, the nature of the source is critical to the veracity of the conclusions presented. The fellows in question can report what they observe, but a trained professional see other things...they view such sites through other lenses.

Conversely, folks like Von Daeniken, for example, see everything through 'space eyes', and draw their conclusions accordingly. Doesn't mean they are right...merely interpreting the data according to their worldview (or business plan).

So...given that I cannot observe this site first hand, I need to hear what the experts have to say so that I can come close to an informed conclusion on the subject. How old is this site 'supposed' to be? 200KYA?

Ok, prove it, is all

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I would be happy to see some more pictures, especially closer up pictures of these stone structures, and this stone palace with high walls. No matter who starts to look at this place, it will be quite the mystery for a long time.

With all the archeologists who have been looking at the Sphinx for decades, an occultist like De Lubicz was the guy who pointed out the water erosion of the west wall of the sphinx. This has been the key that has provided some evidence for an earlier date that many felt would be more correct the Sphinx for a long time earlier. It was not an archeologist. who got the whole debate on the subject going.

It would take someone with time and money to put together a team to dig through such a site. This would mean university funding, so yeah, most likely it will be an archeologist leading such a team paid by university money.

It doesn't change that these guys are probably on to something by looking at this site. From what I read, this is the only place in Sub-Sarahan Africa where stone walls exist. This clearly demonstrates that their was some ancient advanced civilization at some time in the past. Building stone walls is a large step forward.

Being as this is near where Homo Sapien is believed to have originated, who knows how old this site could be.

Originally posted by poet1b
From what I read, this is the only place in Sub-Sarahan Africa where stone walls exist. This clearly demonstrates that their was some ancient advanced civilization at some time in the past. Building stone walls is a large step forward.

Ummmm...you might want to investigate the great stone towers of Zimbabwe:

By the Middle Ages, there was a Bantu civilization in the region, as evidenced by ruins at Great Zimbabwe and other smaller sites, whose main outstanding archaeological achievement is a unique dry stone architecture. en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, it's kind of an insult to deny that the indigenous people were able to do great things. Kinda like suggesting that it was some ancient 'advanced race' that built the great mounds of the Mississippians. Just sayin', eh?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

In fact, it's kind of an insult to deny that the indigenous people were able to do great things. Kinda like suggesting that it was some ancient 'advanced race' that built the great mounds of the Mississippians. Just sayin', eh?

What are you talking about, I never made any such suggestion.

I assumed that this was built by Africans whose ancestors currently occupy the area. I think it would be great if it was found that some of these sites date back more than a thousand years ago, a couple of thousands of years ago, indicating that Africans had ancient advanced civilizations of their own.

Do you even bother to read my posts?

Here is a better link.

www.safrica.info...

I think the whole alien slave origins of humanity is an interesting story, but extremely unlikely to be true. However I do think there are better odds that ancient civilizations were visited by aliens, being that almost all civilizations have stories that sound like they might have visited ancient mankind.

This sounds very interesting. Im going to start a thread soon about my research ive done linking reptilian extraterrestrials and the ancient egyptians and such keep an eye out for it

reply to post by moocowman


that video talks about mono atomic elements. well heres a fact;
every element is mono atomic. thats the definition of the atom/element relationship.

another fact: natural metals can not exist as a mono atomic MOLECULE
an element can not change its properties and be the same element (by shear definition alone)
carbon can be graphite, coal, or diamond, but it is always carbon
anything else is a compond, made up of a molecule and that made from atoms
additionally the "science" of the product can be linked to a number of web sites that sell an enlightenment product with no blind studies.
the "home grown" sites on the web have some very dangerous mixing of lye and then acids (of various porportions and strengths) to make your own. very dangerous stuff. and, I feel, it fringes on the whole "drug thing" that should not be discussed per our T&C.
and by the way I am still waiting for final confirmation, but GE never gave the gentlemen from Arizona a statement on "exotic elements" disappearing

IMHO mono-atomic elements are a hoax.

to the mods: let me know what proof you need to call it as such, as I have some now, and can possibly provide plenty.

I just like don't like the thought of people eating "drano" to become enlightened

dr

Sounds like "America B.C." by Barry Fell all over again.
The same people that went to America before the fall of
Rome went to Africa as well.
The same tradition of Druid monuments, although America
just had solstice indicators by comparison.
Africa being closer connected to the same continent as
the sailors had earlier dates of construction and more
druid like.

reply to post by NoJoker13


I think you will find that carbon dating is unreliable before 4000BC, something to do with volcanoes & ice ages, it's all explained in the book Dead men's secrets by Jonathan Gray. In it he also shows evidence that there were many advanced pre-inca civilisations that go back more than 150,000 years-several cities from this era have been found.
It appears we are in fact DEvolving, not EVolving, from a much advanced race of man-Neandethals were isolated from the main race & devolved rapidly due to in-breeding (gene pool too small).
We also came from one 'advanced' tribe that suddenly appeared somewhere in Africa (babylon?)-anyway it's all in the book, someone on this site donated all their PDF's-i will try & find the link.
One day we shall know the truth, there is less evidence supporting Darwinism, & more evidence that says 'we arrived here'-draw your own conclusions.
Have a nice day

reply to post by poet1b


Indeed, there is evidence that the Sphinx was at one time underwater (!!)
and that it is far older than they think......

reply to post by poet1b


I agree with you, again, there is evidence that the older pyramids were far superior than the later ones, i'm not going to search out all the links, but it IS there.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Someone else provided the evidence that earlier Egyptian building was better, more sound, more ornate, and demonstrated better craftsmanship. I have read a few sources that point this out, and from what I understand, many mainstream Egyptologists agree with this.

I read an article about a decade ago, which claimed that human intelligence in the U.S. has increase several fold over the last century. Many people think just the opposite is true, and of course they also seem to have little to no appreciation of the younger generation. I suspect that intelligence has increased dramatically. The ability to use technology among young people is pretty amazing.

It seems that once a civilization has been formed, there could have been incredible increases in intelligence in these cultures that created massive explosions in craftsmanship and technological understanding. A healthy diet, and the ability to spend less time concentrating on survival, and more time studying nature could allow for for fast advancement of a culture.

ON the negative side, these cultures also seem to peak. Institutional corruption seems to be a natural factor of any civilization, that ultimately leads to the downfall of that civilization.

Originally posted by poet1b
Someone else provided the evidence that earlier Egyptian building was better, more sound, more ornate, and demonstrated better craftsmanship. I have read a few sources that point this out, and from what I understand, many mainstream Egyptologists agree with this.

There are always many factors in quality and complexity.

Commitment, time spent, creative factors, and of course budget.

The earlier projects were probably more reverential and dedicated, the later ones done with less concern or care for detail.

Happens in culture and creativity all the time. So you find higher achievement decades or hundreds of years in the past. Look at 20th Century architecture as an example.