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.

 

Ancient Human Metropolis Found in Africa

page: 6
137
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Fedge
 


Looks really old. It could have even 200 years.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by odyseusz]


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Tue Nov 3 2009 by Jbird]




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Here is an example of one of the hundreds of sites being discussed on the ancient South African civilization. This screen shot is near the OP google earth links. Notice the many circles in close proximity.





[edit on 3-11-2009 by wiredamerican]

[edit on 3-11-2009 by wiredamerican]

[edit on 3-11-2009 by wiredamerican]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by odyseusz
 


Ah look, now you are a specialist !


Quote from you : "I don't see any evidence of any city on marked area. There weren't any
archaeological proof shown. I expect we talk about nothing. "

Choose your fight buddy, or your boss wil be unpleased. ;D

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Fedge]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52
Yes, thanks for the info.

We will eventually figure it out. Just a matter of time now, as the return of (nibiru) the punnisher is at hand.

I have seen too many educated experts spit on things that shake their theories. It seems they go to great lengths to try and continue their particular illusion.

We want to know the truth of the matter, not what you think happened.

Most historical theories of our evolution are fabricated without facts and evidence. The truth is hard to swallow, for many.


Totally, the missing link theory is about something that is still missing, awesome.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fedge
reply to post by odyseusz
 


Ah look, now you are a specialist !


Quote from you : "I don't see any evidence of any city on marked area. There weren't any
archaeological proof shown. I expect we talk about nothing. "

Choose your fight buddy, or your boss wil be unpleased. ;D

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Fedge]


I didn't saw any archaeological evidence. I could see only some relics of typical African village which looks abandoned. What so unusual of that?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 



What an amazinbg video you linked!Had to watch that all in one sitting even when I should be doing something else!Have read about this before but this opened it all up very easily.Loved the left and right brain becoming in sync with only one test,and as for the element vanishing in a bright light to another dimension-thats just so cool-sounds like a Fringe epidsode with Walter taking charge in his lab whites

Seems like science is determined to poke through the veil of this reality,hopefully the other side cant come in!

To the OP of this thread,thanks for taking the time to post this thread I expect Africa has many pieces of the jigsaw left for us to find



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
While I'm not rushing into any conclusion or getting to exited about this 'discovery', never stops to amaze me the way some people react in this kind of threads. What if this site is proven to be that old?


Then it's a big deal. Forgive me, please, for labeling it as conjecture until such time. Conversely, if it is the slam-dunk that so many here feel it is, then it should be no problem to prove it. Conclusively.

And it strikes me that it is up to the proponents to do so, so the ball is in their court.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I find something better.
Ancient city in Poland. Some relay relay smart scientist which wants to stay anonymous (I swear) claims it is 500.000 years old.



By the way. He is sure that he has right because he agree with himself.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
so... based on your argument that the scientist is "relay relay" smart, you claim that you yourself... is a dork??


EDIT: I spelled really too well



[edit on 3-11-2009 by guidanceofthe third kind]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 


You can not radiocarbon date rocks, but you can radiocarbon date organic material found under the rocks using soil samples.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
so... based on your argument that the scientist is "relay relay" smart, you claim that you yourself... is a dork??


EDIT: I spelled really too well



[edit on 3-11-2009 by guidanceofthe third kind]

What can I say?
I wasn't first. Someone els started this ridiculous topic


Santa Clause doesn't exist.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by odyseusz]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
so... based on your argument that the scientist is "relay relay" smart, you claim that you yourself... is a dork??

EDIT: I spelled really too well


I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that his English is a lot better than your Polish. Perhaps a little trip back to the subject at hand, please.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by osiris9510
 


by your logic, my 6 year old house is millenium old then because i dug down 10 feet to put the foundation on. If they were to date below the foundation and from that determine my house to be the age of the soil it sits upon, then that would outline a problem with the process.

If someone comes across a ruins, cooks and eats a bird and leaves teh remains there, is the ruin only as old as the bird remains? according to that same logic you just put forward, it is!

It is a fundamental problem with the science of dating. It is not 100% reliable and it is not 100% accurate where contamination is involved.

dates are also pulled from archaeological, anthropoligical and known records.

making claims taht a place or civilized humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old is simply not supported except by people who adamanetly want to believe despite the folly of the information.

deny ignorance? sure, let's start here and get a little more skepticism working FOR us and lets keep a sane and logical eye towards these things.

as soon as you jump in feet first and proclaim your belief based on someones mere words, you have identified yourself as someone who is limited in their ability to understand the world around them.

you are automatically allocated to the realm of poeple who can be sold ice cubes despite the fact they live in the arctic.

I mean, why even have the disciplines of the sciences when we can just run to the musings of people selling fictional mystery?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Too much pseudo-archaeology thus far. Show me the empirical evidence!

Even the sources for this aren't credible archeological sources, and no archeological studies of these sites leaves an awful lot of questions about these claims.

However, casually considering the possibility that perhaps the author is onto something...

Could this be signs of a civilization left behind by Homo floresiensis?

Assuming the dating time-frame is correct, this wouldn't equate with the time-line of Human evolution, but would be at the height of Homo floresiensis!

Not only did Homo florensiensis exist 100,000-200,000 before Homo erectus, but they migrated out of Africa not once, but twice! Even more startling is that these two migrations occurred 300,000 years apart which means this wasn't an isolated species or a fluke of nature, but a very populous and perhaps civilized species to have survived for so long and had the resources to migrate twice after such a long time span apart.

Hobbits walked out of Africa

Since we are still at the speculative theory stage in regards to this "discovery", I thought I would throw my own theory into the ring.

It will be interesting to see what credible research into these ruins will yield.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
this is a really great find, but i have a hard time believing a site named niburu.com or godlikeproductions for that matter.

when could we expect to see this on national geographic? i would bet never, but who knows. i really hope this isnt some farce, but ive seen people claim wackier things as proof.

i find it interesting that people have always adored gold.

besides it does more than make jewelry!

its also a currency, and a conductor.

the ancients needed it for their processors in their computers



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Great find OP S&F.

Of course we are only hearing one side of the argument, and 'star dating' is so open to interpretation, so hopefully a critic will be forthcoming so as to deny ignorance. My own personal gut feeling from research and... well common sense is that this date is very plausible for human civilisation.

reply to post by moocowman
 


Thanks so much for the heads up with this video. I've had to pause it to scan the thread then I'll be off to bed with an interesting docu to watch.

*snip*

 
Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on Tue Nov 3 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
i find it interesting that people have always adored gold.
besides it does more than make jewelry!
its also a currency, and a conductor.
the ancients needed it for their processors in their computers


Yes...computers powered by the Baghdad Batteries! But gold is also scarce, does not corrode or tarnish easily, and is very malleable.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by djusdjus
 



Ok, are we done with personal attacks? All I said was that you could radiocarbon date organic material found underneath monoliths. If they found bone tools or other manufactured artifacts underneath one of these stone monoliths it is conceivable that they could date the site fairly accurately. If the materials are found further down in the soil, its likely that the materials were there before the monolith.


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Tue Nov 3 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


A star for you sir, that is an excellent concept.

Personally, I wonder if the inhabitants of this area were a flourishing civilization that was wiped out by the Lake Toba ELE, the one that knocked us down to about 2000 humans on the face of the planet?

I've always figured there was more to Africa than meets the eye, not enough decent archaeology is done there anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join