Proof! Of previous Civilizations and Cataclysms!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This has been explained before. It's not underwater cities, it's just the way they collect the sonar data from the ships mapping the ocean floor.




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
How does this; earth.google.com...

Compare to this; bbs.keyhole.com...

Or relate to this; bbs.keyhole.com...

or this; www.ngdc.noaa.gov...



[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
This has been explained before. It's not underwater cities, it's just the way they collect the sonar data from the ships mapping the ocean floor.



Opinion noted.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


A very eloquent quote from a comment taken from your referenced material;

"I'm perfectly willing to accept that the apparent "map" in the Sun story is an "artifact" of the data collection process. However, I will reserve judgment until someone can point out another example of such an "artifact." Can anyone tell us where to look?"



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I see gridwork in those pics.
Like how the mapping ships will work in a grid over an area.

For those thinking this is Atlantis why is it in the wrong ocean first of all and why isn't the arrangement more in a concentric circle pattern as described by Plato?

I'm sorry, but Google Earth isn't very reliable for this sort of thing.

As a matter of fact, there have been many threads identical to this in the little while that I've been visiting this site. All of which have ended up to be a misinterpration of Data. Every single one.

In fact, one such thread, I think, was claiming that Atlantis had been found in a Peruvian lake based on these exact same sort of artifacts. However, it was easily shown to be erroneous due to the fact that it was just a lake and not in the bottom of some oceanic abyss.

Perhaps the OP should consider the fact that people aren't debunking just to debunk this. I myself would absolutely love to see Atlantis discovered as I firmly believe it existed. However, when you see the same argument rehashed time and time again and each time it is proven to be incorrect you sorta just look at all of these the same way.

Bunk.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Let me make it simple for all, the bathymetric data used in google earth is acquired from satellites, which can be learned about here: www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

And has nothing to do with sonar scans such as this one; earth.google.com...


[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Bunk you say. Review previous post. Additionally show me the identical threads you reference.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   


Another picture of #1 (31° 9'14.90"N 24° 5'17.74"W) with a measurement line of 103 miles.

Edited to remove previous uninformed stuff I wrote


After researching further, Google explains the grids very clearly and explains why we only see them in certain parts of the ocean. I'll choose to believe Google's scientists until further info comes forth.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Opinion noted.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PaulKCA
 


Look man, I have no interest in proving anything to you in regards to this subject.
I have seen all of the evidence I personally need to see.

There is a reason why your thread isn't gaining that much attention. I remember a time a year or so ago when a thread just like this would be hopping all over the front page of this website. There have been several of them.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I am firmly convinced that Atlantis did in fact exist at one point in time. However, I do not believe that Google Earth is where it is going to be found.

You can say I am wrong for stating my opinions all you like. It really doesn't matter. After all, I am doing the same about your opinions.

But I'm not doing your research for you. The number one thing you should do when starting a thread here is to check for other threads like it. I'm sure if you do that, you will see some of the threads I speak of. I'm really not interested enough to pull the threads out for you OR to go to GoogleEarth and find the explanations of these artifacts for you.

You go right on believing that is a city though. I'll check back later to see if you can get it confirmed, as it is your burden to evidence your claims. Until that time, I am done commenting in your thread.

Good luck to ya.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
If these are sonar tracks, there should be numerous pics just like this one.

I wouldn't believe anyone who has an interest in maintaining the Status Quo.

The truth of these pics can be very upsetting to billions of People who believe that "god" majikly created the Earth in a day.
Therefore it gets some unlikely explanation to keep folks calm.

Ice age and glaciers creeping over Level Land, grinding up boulders, and yet leaving adjacent Soft Sedimnet layers undisturbed is also something the curious should look into.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Many who would like to prove the data presented in this thread wrong quote this article from the telegraph; www.telegraph.co.uk...

Lets review the statement by the GE spokesperson;

"A spokeswoman for Google said: "It's true that many amazing discoveries have been made in Google Earth including a pristine forest in Mozambique that is home to previously unknown species and the remains of an Ancient Roman villa. Her first words " It's true" "that many amazing discoveries have been made in GE "INCLUDING" a pristine forest in Mozambique etc.". This is validating the information but I will not go into linguistic analysis here, but can say that this statement confirms what you see to be factual, and proves that new data has been found that we did not know about!

Let's continue.

"In this case, however, what users are seeing is an artifact of the data collection process. This statement is false! And she attempts to mislead in the continuation.


"Sea floor terrain data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the sea floor. Indeed this is true however not in this case,
this is what sonar data from a ship looks like; earth.google.com...

"The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data. This statement is false! The data at all of the sites in this thread was not acquired from a ship! But rather from satellites as can be learned about here; www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

"The fact that there are blank spots between each of these lines is a sign of how little we really know about the world's oceans." This is true and she obviously knows how the data was collected and what it represents.

The admission was a blow to Atlantis hunters who are convinced the city still lies undiscovered below the waves". How so?





[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by notreallyalive
 


Hi, "notreallyalive"
are you really ?


Well ... Here we go !

- What stroke me in the first moment, when I saw this figure, was it's size : more than the whole Canariy archipel itself ...
You say 104 miles long ? agreed : if it's a City, it's really a HUGE one !
But who told a City ? I spoke of ROADS, not "Streets".

- But ... think of it : it's this size which brings down Google's explanation !
On board of these ships, echosounding the bottom of the sea, there are OF COURSE monitors and computers, giving in real time, the result of this echosounding.
So, you think really that during several days, along about 2500 miles of sea-cruising at low speed, the reason is :


In this case, the soundings produced by a ship are also about 1% deeper than the data we have in surrounding areas — likely an error — making the tracks stand out more.

"Likely an error" is certainly possible on a small area, but it seems really doubtfull that it is on a 10 thousand square miles area !
The man in front of the monitor didn't sleep severall days long ...

- Also, in the same Google's article, you can see


You can see all of the soundings that produced this particular pattern with this KMZ file.


Some traces fit (I showed some in red), but most not at all
Furthermore, the explanation of the result beeing a rectangle lacks ...

So, unlike you, I don't buy this explanation.
Looks to me as a deception.
It's so easy to give a "scientific" explanation which closes any further inquiry !

It's a fact : any evidence which should proove to us that there was some thousand years ago, advanced civilizations, has to be destroyed or discredited in order to protect the interests of powerfull lobbies.

I'm still waiting some GOOD explanation to that feature.



[edit on 8/11/2009 by orkson]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
LIBYAN DESERT GLASS


One weird piece of evidence of ancient advanced technology is Libyan desert glass. Over 100 years ago, they found an area of Libyan desert covered with twisted bits of shattered glass. It made no sense. Efforts to put it together came up with nothing.

In 1944 that all changed. After the detonation of the world's first nuclear bomb, they found the desert at ground zero had turned into an identical situation with the same type of shattered glass everywhere from the heat.

Since even a meteor cannot produce this, only a nuclear bomb, it would suggest that a nuclear bomb was detonated in Libyan over 10,000 years ago.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by PaulKCA
 


Look man, I have no interest in proving anything to you in regards to this subject.
I have seen all of the evidence I personally need to see.

There is a reason why your thread isn't gaining that much attention. I remember a time a year or so ago when a thread just like this would be hopping all over the front page of this website. There have been several of them.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I am firmly convinced that Atlantis did in fact exist at one point in time. However, I do not believe that Google Earth is where it is going to be found.

You can say I am wrong for stating my opinions all you like. It really doesn't matter. After all, I am doing the same about your opinions.

But I'm not doing your research for you. The number one thing you should do when starting a thread here is to check for other threads like it. I'm sure if you do that, you will see some of the threads I speak of. I'm really not interested enough to pull the threads out for you OR to go to GoogleEarth and find the explanations of these artifacts for you.

You go right on believing that is a city though. I'll check back later to see if you can get it confirmed, as it is your burden to evidence your claims. Until that time, I am done commenting in your thread.

Good luck to ya.


"Look man"




[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
DARWIN SUPPORTERS AND CREATIONISTS

These two groups have been at each others throats for nearly a century, yet there is a solution that no-one will consider for which there is evidence.

THink of mud. If you want to walk up a path a cople of feet deep in mud after heavy rain, what do you do? You follow the tracks of an SUV, ATV, car or anyone else who has gone before you. Because of the way that mud solidifies, for your tracks to remain in the other car's etc, you must have made you tracks within a a few hours, a day at the most of the car or other person's tracks who went first. OK?

Now consider this... In Texas they have a piece of fossilised deep mud with what are clearly the tracks of a Tyrranasaurus Rex in them. The only thing is this... following in its steps, logically made no later than a few hours maximum, are the footsteps of a HUMAN.

This leads to only one conclusion: humans and dinosaurs co-existed at least 65million years ago.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
[more! Thanks for your addition to this thread and such an eloquent representation of misinterpretation.

Thanks for your post!

Namaste

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PaulKCA
 


Your amazing, perfect example of public school education. Your so called evidence is thousands of feet underwater that never seen the light of day.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
THE PYRAMIDS

It is claimed that the pyramids of ancient Egypt could not have been designed and built by human and so must have been done by aliens.

This is UNTRUE. The pyramids could have been designed by anyone with a Mac G5 running an advanced Cad-Cam programme, the stones cut by laser-guided cutting equipment and placed in position by a fleet of military grade helicopters.

Now this sounds ridiculous to suggest this - that the Ancient Egyptians had access to this sort of technology, but is it any more ridiculoos to suggest that aliens came to the planet on some sort of "off-world" Government-sponsored jobs-creation programme for little green alien youths to build these edifices and then abandon them to mystify us?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by PaulKCA
 


Your amazing, perfect example of public school education. Your so called evidence is thousands of feet underwater that never seen the light of day.


Yes I am! And so are you but in a different way!


Via Con Dios su adorador, el que da culto Y el diablo.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by PaulKCA]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join