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.

 

Proof! Of previous Civilizations and Cataclysms!

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


With the utmost respect I don't recall ever mentioning Atlantis or advanced. Previous I believe and find the published explanation invalid as per supporting data in the updated post on page 4 of this thread.



[edit on 10-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PaulKCA
 


Wasnt replying to you OP specifically, was replying in general, to all the posts that did



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Thank you! Not really familiar with the processes here. Back to the topic, upon examination of the data I was unable to confirm accuracy with accepted published explanatory data regarding suggested anomalies by claimed methods of data acquisition . And have outlined noted inconsistencies! Having studied all known hypothesis, would appreciate an alternative to the sum that current data equates to.

And am still waiting for tangible data refuting current equation.







[edit on 11-11-2009 by PaulKCA]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anamnesis

Originally posted by OhZone
Sorry Amenesis, The wind is not a good explanation. They are grasping at straws there.
What is so hard to understand about cosmic debris being the cause?



I could understand it better if there was evidence supporting that theory but there isn't. (baiting you)

There is however, evidence supporting the wind scape theory. (more bait)


I suppose I could ask the same question to you; what is so hard to understand about the wind shaping a sandy landscape? Did you read about the perma-frost slumping as well? How about the sedimntary analysys?


****I don't think that the wind could gouge the trenches, do you?
In sandy terrain, wind should have created sany mounds, as in the Sahara desert.
Do you think that wind explains the Carolina lakes?

Such wind would have to be Hurricane force winds 125mph and above, like the ones that sand blasted people to death in the Florida Keyes in 1935 and have ripped away sections of the barrier islands. And like the devastation to the Texas barrier island just last year. But no elongated lakes appeared.
There are also elongated lakes in Africa and Australia.

Thanks for the bait, I'm finding loads of interesting related info.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


zazz, it is kind of hard to prove what went on in a city that is a mile under the ocean, but we can look at the remains of old civilizations that were on land. Such as at this site:civilization

It starts out with Pyramid, but if you are bored with that, as I am, skip to the next section.

Here is an article about evidence of civilization (tho not a city) on the bottom of Lake Huron.
Huron

Here is a link to some more general info on this catastrophe:
Atlantis
This is an online book. I bought the book a few years ago.
For the purpose of this thread, go to the PDF pages: 16,17,18, 64,65, 177,178,179, 183, & 297.

Here is another link with Loads of info on the matter:
Atlantis Quest

[edit on 11-11-2009 by OhZone]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Hi OhZone !

You gave this link : Huron

Allow me to give an exerpt :



John O'Shea, curator of Great Lakes Archaeology in the Museum of Anthropology and professor in the Department of Anthropology speaking :

“I've said it before and I'll say it again...we are surrounded by wonders and discoveries right here in our own back yards. New species to be found, new eco-systems to be discovered, new portions of our history to be unearthed.
This discovery was made possible through increased efforts by the Federal Government to map and explore the Great Lakes. We've inhabited this region for over a quarter of a millennium and we're JUST starting to peer deeper into what's going on in the Great Lakes, thanks in part to modern technology, but even more importantly a renewed will to do so.”


Yes ...
We have MARS high definition landscapes.
But none of our own underwater surface (75% of Earth's).

I think that it should make us discover very weird things ...



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Even though there is no evidence to this end I'd bet that the entirety of this planet is mapped in HD, we just don't have access to the data.

Have yet to find evidence to debunk this thread , but still working on it!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I do think the main reason we don't find evidence of any other civilizations is that we are looking in the wrong places. .... Very ancient man would have built either along the Ocean coastline or near the delta's of rivers as they flowed into the ocean. Being that sea levels were much lower 10,000 years ago, it stands to reason that those civilizations are now underwater and covered with layers of silt/sand.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


That's just it have you seen the pictures of all the sites addressed in the OP?
There is certainly something there at each of the sites that does not correspond with the surrounding terrain. And then the postulation presented by the OP is in theory possible and would explain why you find sea shells on mountain tops.

So far all data supports these theories with no alternatives yet, but still searching.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
Hmmm... I have to agree that I see no evidence that these are remnants of ancient civilizations.

Pangaea theory is pretty sound, these locations are way out in the middle of places which have been oceans for millions of years, well before any civilization existed. If we were to look for lost civilizations we should be looking in the more shallow waters surrounding the continents where a civilization may have flourished when the water table was lower, or when there was more landmass before it eroded away or collapsed from earthquakes or tsunamis.


Pangea theory is not fact and far from being "sound" IMO. See alternative Growing Earth theory at this LINK

Also Millions of years ago there were no oceans, only shallow seas. This is fact and evident by the proven age of the ocean floor.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I do think the main reason we don't find evidence of any other civilizations is that we are looking in the wrong places. .... Very ancient man would have built either along the Ocean coastline or near the delta's of rivers as they flowed into the ocean. Being that sea levels were much lower 10,000 years ago, it stands to reason that those civilizations are now underwater and covered with layers of silt/sand.


The main reason that YOU don't see evidence for previous civilizations on Earth is that you have not looked at any of the links provied.
You could also do a search for evidence of ancient civilizations.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
What if polar shifts are real. And one did indeed happen some 10,000 or so years ago. It would have placed antartica in a much warmer climate. Perhaps antartica is atlantis, its just buried beneath the ice. I dont see why they havent funded a expedition there to dig through the ice. its practicaly the only place we havent looked.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



I have looked thank you. The evidence presented in this thread with the Google images are hardly conclusive to me. They very well could be artifacts of the imaging process. There has to be another set of data images that either confirm or deny what the Google images show.

About the best evidence is the Black Sea civilization, but that doesn't go back far enough. The structures off of Japan are also intriguing. It seems odd to me that the Great Egyptian society just seemingly sprung up and became a full fledge civilization starting from neolithic beginnings.

I remember seeing an interactive map that showed the change in sea level as you go back in time. Those are the area's I would be looking at. Can't seem to find that site now.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by pavil]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Technically, it wasn't water it was sand during dust storms that have been demonstrated to show similar erosion marks as rain falling. Being that the sphinx lies in the middle of a desert... well... Duh? I mean, it's the only thing I can conclude.


Incorrect.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And you also fail to realize that the Giza Plateau was not a desert during the last ice age. It had plenty of rain.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Pavil, You didn't look at the links I provided.
Go back and look at them
All the stuff on the expanding Earth site. There are several articles there that do a lot of explaining. NO, they do not get into the underwater stuff.
They are discussing the life ot the physical Earth.

Other links go into past civilization. There have been plenty of artifacts found.
Maybe you should look at the "Ancient Civilization" Section of ATS here.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Yea, technically the wiki link states that it's more controversial than established fact. It would *only be true if* the sphinx existed that far back to be eroded by rains, but there is still the distinct possibility for the current accepted date being more correct. At least in my opinion. I can't think of any reason for the Egyptian government to hide or cover up an older date. I suppose I just forgot my crazy pills.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 


If that expanding Earth theory were true then any and all claims that the Egyptian pyramids measure the diameter of the Earth exactly as it exists today is pure BS as the Earth would have been smaller in diameter 5000 or even 12000 years ago.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 


If that expanding Earth theory were true then any and all claims that the Egyptian pyramids measure the diameter of the Earth exactly as it exists today is pure BS as the Earth would have been smaller in diameter 5000 or even 12000 years ago.


Yes, it would, so that leaves the Pyramid dataes open doesn't it.
Anatoly Fomenko thinks they were build in the 1400's or so.
Our History time line is seriously messed up, by possibly as much as 1800 years. Researchers have frequently marvelled at the preservation of certain "Ancient" Egyptian artifacts. Wrong dating could be the reason, don't you think?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Perhaps it's not that the dating of history is messed up. I'm thinking it's most likely people claiming all sorts of wackiness to make a few quick bucks off of gullible people who question "the man" and turn around and make ridiculous claims that there is some huge giant mass grand conspiracy to hide the truth that *only* those select few pseudo-scientists are able to discover for us.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by sirnex]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join