Ancient Earth Carvings Found in Amazon Jungle

Originally posted by SugarCube
Great.. lets cut down some more trees - this is doing a great service to science and enables anthropologists and other assorted scientists to attract grants to investigate the phenomena and feed their families while the world goes down the tubes. Hey, we all have bills to pay!

I'd rather they remain hidden, given that the one thing we have not managed to learn from 'ancient and lost civilisations' is how to prevent ourselves from imploding.

There really isn't a 'bonus' side to cutting down the rainforests...

Exactly my feelings as well. Cannot say it better.

reply to post by audas


So you refute the notion that 90-95% were wiped out as a direct result of European (Spanish/Catholicism church) treasure hunters and missionaries?

Are you seriously suggesting, that these indigenous peoples, whom after living for literally thousands upon thousands of years in their habitats, successfully learning about and managing their environments, supporting huge populations - suddenly and extremely coincidentally, forget how to manage their crops and environment, and slaughter most of their own population at precisely the same point in time that the Spanish arrive?

Come on..i like a theory as much as the next person, but imo your ignoring the facts to fit your theory...never a good idea, if you want to get to the truth of a matter.

reply to post by Aquarius1


Environmentalist do not bemoan. They alert, they inform, they warn.
It is those who childishly want to continue the exploitation and pillage of the planet who bemoan the end of an enterprise they are making a fast buck off of at the expense of our children's future.

reply to post by Aquarius1


These are way older than 700 years old. If they were 700 years old or less they would still be part of the oral tradition of indigenous tribes of the Amazon, and they are not.

Recent finds point them as being 2000+.

Personally I think they are part of a much older civilization that inhabited that area way before that and that is now partially forgotten with only bits and pieces kept on the oral tradition trough legends and myths of the region.

The search for Manoa is still up. Some explorers swear to have seen lost cities in the middle of the jungle, including a old parent of mine that did explore that region by the 1900 and used to swear to have seen pyramid on the middle of the jungle with a civilization at full work that vanished before his bare eyes.

Indians of the region talk about a city of light that is still active on the region but only reveals it self to some lucky ones.

Anyway... it's a interesting region for sure with lots of stories, myths, legends that are fun to look into.


Thanks for posting it.

Another interesting thing on the region (Brazil) are the inscriptions on the Gavea Stone in Rio de Janeiro that were first found by the Portuguese that point to that region being visited by others way before them.

en.wikipedia.org...

That stone alone has a set of myths and legends of it's own.

reply to post by Aquarius1



I have to say that even though I do agree with you, people have to understand that these forests are not exactly "ours" but theirs. The western civilization didn't asked for their permission when they destroyed their own forests and pushed the wild life in their own countries to tiny reservations so they could "progress".

It's not up to us to tell how they should do it, specially since the Western civilization is the one paying for that destruction.

US is buying tons and tons of wood of the Amazon forest to build crappy homes in the US, and are also financing the transformation of that "useless rain forest full of rare wild life that can't be found anywhere else" into farms just so they can sustain their fast food nation.

Wanna keep the Amazon rain forest?

Demand a change on the way of life of the Western civilization. Stop building homes made from wood, stop buying furniture made of wood, stop using pencils, paper, etc and you will be doing your part.

Also worths mentioning that most of the companies that cut down trees in the Amazon region are just Brazilian companies which are nothing more, nothing less than fronts of American, European and Japanese companies that profit millions upon millions of dollars a month and give nothing in return to that country or the people of that specific region.

It's a really sad picture to look at indeed.

reply to post by aliencatlady


i know, link doesn`t work but if you google terra preta phenomenon it will start you off on your research,i`ve found little home made videos on the techniques of terra preta for fertilizing soil, but nothing on the soil found in the amazon the size of france

what is the elevation of area spoken??

i have to clearly point out that most environmentalists havent got a clue about what they are talking about - the majority of the information coming from the greening lobby is actually disinfo and propaganda but it is still radicalising people like a religion (which is in fact what it is) - any person with a true understanding of how plants grow will realise that more CO2 equates to faster and more plant growth - and to say that we totally rely on the rain forest is also propaganda, the northern forests of canada, america and russia are greater in size that the amazon basin, its just an easy way to tug on people's heart strings. you could cut down the entire amazon rainforest - leave it for twenty years and the whole thing would have grown anew. the real tragedy today is that the majority of the western populace are stupid and take all their information from the powers that be.

Originally posted by steveetienne
you could cut down the entire amazon rainforest - leave it for twenty years and the whole thing would have grown anew.

Not exactly true.

Having been part of an anthropological expedition to the Rainforests of Queensland, Australia, I have some knowledge of the respective eco-system.

Rainforests in these areas tend to rely on a continuous decay process to promote the propagation of new life as the soil itself cannot sustain the plant life per se. As the forest vegetation dies so it returns the nutrients necessary for further growth.

It is difficult to grow a completely new forest from fallow ground in these areas. A 'cell' is required which essentially expands over a relatively slow period of time.

The issue for a lot of 'tree huggers' is not necessarily the CO2 aspect, or global warming or any other disaster scenario, it is simply the fact that wiping out rain forests destroys the micro-eco systems that specialised life forms rely on and have adapted to. Those life forms cannot evolve quick enough to keep pace with the destruction and so die off.

The ethos of exploration should always be 'first do no harm'. We should work within the boundaries of the natural world and if we can do this then maybe we can build our societies to work in a self supporting manner.

Learning from 'ancient & lost' civilisations is not about 'it' telling us what to do, but about learning what we should NOT do.

you are wrong in entirety - having been a biologist for 45 years and avid gardener i can categorically state that many swathes of rainforest over the entire planet have been destroyed by naturally occurring events such as fire, flood or earthquake and within a matter of a few small years the mass of plant life within the various rain forests on earth grow back at an alarmingly reassuring rate - obviously grand trees take longer to reappear but pioneer species of plants reappear vigorously and healthily extremely quickly. indeed many species ofg plants and trees actually rely on being decimated by fire in order for their seeds to germinate.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
As time passes we will find more and more of them IMO.
For what it's worth I finished this book back in July. I enjoyed every page.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/67676134d4fb.gif[/atsimg]
‘The Lost City of Z’: In search of an Amazon explorer who disappeared in 1925




[edit on 1-1-2010 by SLAYER69]

Thanks for the reccomendation, I've ordered a copy from Amazon.

May I in turn reccomend "True Hallucinations" by Terence Mckenna - a record of the TimeWave Zero author's drug addled stay in the Amazon rain forest.

www.amazon.co.uk...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262455356&sr=8-6

Originally posted by steveetienneyou are wrong in entirety - having been a biologist for 45 years and avid gardener i can categorically state that many swathes of rainforest over the entire planet have been destroyed by naturally occurring events such as fire, flood or earthquake and within a matter of a few small years the mass of plant life within the various rain forests on earth grow back at an alarmingly reassuring rate - obviously grand trees take longer to reappear but pioneer species of plants reappear vigorously and healthily extremely quickly. indeed many species ofg plants and trees actually rely on being decimated by fire in order for their seeds to germinate.

We will have to continue to disagree. Although I assume that growing your own rose garden or perhaps a flourishing vegetable patch, supplements your insightful knowledge of botany in the tropical regions, your statement that I am 'wrong in entirety' is rather dogmatic and perhaps, absurd.

Yes, you are correct that pioneer species appear rapidly after deforestation - the point being that such plants have evolved to do exactly this and take advantage of every possible opportunity within their own micro-climate. Those plants that possess seeds with kernels that require fire to crack them and allow full germination do indeed exist, but are we to assume that by setting all of the forests of the world to the torch we would be doing them a favour. Of course not and I would not expect you to agree with that statement.

Yes, you are correct that fire, flood and earthquakes play a continuing role in impacting animal and plant life cycles as it has for millions of years, however, to then assume that 'it will just grow back' as it was within, I think you mentioned, 20 years, is a ludicrous suggestion.

By your own account, as a biologist of 45 years standing I would expect a little bit more subject matter expertise from you. Clearly you have derived a different conclusion from the studies of the micro-climates that sustain the rainforests as an apparent homogeneous plantation but which in fact represent a collection of variable and discrete ecologies.

Stranded rainforest cells exist in the Australian outback which, by virtue of the level of the 'soil' being just a few meters lower than that surrounding area are capable of sustaining a continual cycle of growth and decay. Yet, just a few meters from the boundary at a higher level the earth is barren and dead.

The specificity of the ambient temperature, humidity and solar protection allow it to exist and it is only sustained through growth and decay - not the inherent nutrients of the soil. Nutritional deficit in soil is well understood, I am sure you are aware of The British Agricultural Revolution? Crop Rotation? Simply replanting a rainforest does not produce a rainforest - not to mention the effects on the animal kingdom, although I am sure that these are remedied in a couple of decades aswell?

If your views are formed by textbooks, then the empirical evidence has clearly been ignored. However, I would suggest that you could have a job tomorrow working for the timber companies that require such 'scientific' validation to continue their work.

Good day to you, Sir.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by SugarCube

Originally posted by steveetienne
you could cut down the entire amazon rainforest - leave it for twenty years and the whole thing would have grown anew.

Not exactly true.

Having been part of an anthropological expedition to the Rainforests of Queensland, Australia, I have some knowledge of the respective eco-system.

Rainforests in these areas tend to rely on a continuous decay process to promote the propagation of new life as the soil itself cannot sustain the plant life per se. As the forest vegetation dies so it returns the nutrients necessary for further growth.

It is difficult to grow a completely new forest from fallow ground in these areas. A 'cell' is required which essentially expands over a relatively slow period of time.

The issue for a lot of 'tree huggers' is not necessarily the CO2 aspect, or global warming or any other disaster scenario, it is simply the fact that wiping out rain forests destroys the micro-eco systems that specialised life forms rely on and have adapted to. Those life forms cannot evolve quick enough to keep pace with the destruction and so die off.

The ethos of exploration should always be 'first do no harm'. We should work within the boundaries of the natural world and if we can do this then maybe we can build our societies to work in a self supporting manner.

Learning from 'ancient & lost' civilisations is not about 'it' telling us what to do, but about learning what we should NOT do.

Originally posted by steveetienne
you are wrong in entirety - having been a biologist for 45 years and avid gardener i can categorically state that many swathes of rainforest over the entire planet have been destroyed by naturally occurring events such as fire, flood or earthquake and within a matter of a few small years the mass of plant life within the various rain forests on earth grow back at an alarmingly reassuring rate - obviously grand trees take longer to reappear but pioneer species of plants reappear vigorously and healthily extremely quickly. indeed many species ofg plants and trees actually rely on being decimated by fire in order for their seeds to germinate.

You are totally correct, this ecosystem and other rain forests rely on decay to bring nutrients to the jungle. In the Amazon the first 2 inches of soil (which happens to fit with the decaying biomass) is where the nutrients are, and after that the soil is acidic. It is possible for the forest to reconstitute itself if its allowed to, but if it's always being cleared and forced into areas, it would take centuries or millenia if the damage is to severe. Actually if it's cleared enough, you could have a scenario called desertification where the fauna is gone and the soil (even though it can grow crops) won't be able to support the fauna that was pushed out of the area. And with less tropical or indigenous fauna, the people would have to supply the area with nutrients and if they just keep it to the areas they are growing large swaths of the cleared jungle will eventually turn arid and scrub. Have any of the nay sayers out their even considered what would happen if the majority of the Amazon Rainforest (which by conservative estimates produce 20 percent of the world oxygen) was cut what it would do to the atmosphere of this planet.

The Amazon Rainforest get 9 feet of rain a year and half that is recycled back into the atmosphere by the fauna. So if you break that cycle which is self sustaining, Ecosystem you won't have the 4.5 feet of water at least that would have evaporated into the air from the respiration of the fauna. Then you won't have the rains and only be getting the melt from the Moutains snows going into the amazon. The Amazon has it's own weather pattern and effects other weather patterns across the globe. Also with the rainforest fauna gone and cleared, there is something else that happens to, guess what it is? It's the Sun, the sun energy isn't getting absorbed and most of it contained on the surface. So once it's gone, the energy from the sunlight will be reflected much more out into space and in so doing you will have a drastic (doesn't matter if it's close to the equator) change in temperature during the day and especially in the evening. And to see what it would look like in the early stages just google Brazilian scrub land and that would be what it would start to look like. And if enough of the rainforest is gone we would see increased desert growth.

www.blueplanetbiomes.org...

www.brazzilmag.com...

reply to post by hoghead cheese

In the Amazon the first 2 inches of soil (which happens to fit with the decaying biomass) is where the nutrients are, and after that the soil is acidic. It is possible for the forest to reconstitute itself if its allowed to, but if it's always being cleared and forced into areas, it would take centuries or millenia if the damage is to severe. Actually if it's cleared enough, you could have a scenario called desertification where the fauna is gone and the soil (even though it can grow crops) won't be able to support the fauna that was pushed out of the area. And with less tropical or indigenous fauna, the people would have to supply the area with nutrients and if they just keep it to the areas they are growing large swaths of the cleared jungle will eventually turn arid and scrub. Have any of the nay sayers out their even considered what would happen if the majority of the Amazon Rainforest (which by conservative estimates produce 20 percent of the world oxygen) was cut what it would do to the atmosphere of this planet.

Excellent post, you have so eloquently said what I tried to convey in an earlier post, the rainforest's are the life and breath of our beautiful planet, * for you.

cutting down trees and forest fires is a totally different story, because the forest fires create the terra preta phenomenon, with the charcoal burning process making the soil more fertile,cutting the trees down does nothing for the soil

reply to post by l77way


Fertile for about two seasons then it's off to the next parcel of land. It's a horrible way to do business. The Ancient Amazonians had a much better and robust way of managing the soil before they were wiped out by plague and Europeans.

Fertile soil in ancient Amazon site may help to curb global warming

Washington, April 11 (ANI): The discovery of some of the most fertile soil in the world at an ancient site of charcoal deposit in central Amazon, might help to revolutionize farming, as well as curb global warming.

Fifteen hundred years ago, tribes people from the central Amazon basin, mixed their soil with charcoal derived from animal bone and tree bark. Today, at the site of this charcoal deposit, scientists have found some of the richest, most fertile soil in the world.

Because this ancient, remarkably simple farming technique seems far ahead of its time, it holds promise as a carbon-negative strategy to rein in world hunger as well as greenhouse gases.

According to scientists, charcoal derived from heated biomass has an unprecedented ability to improve the fertility of soil one that surpasses compost, animal manure, and other well-known soil conditioners.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by SLAYER69]

you would think in this day and age with this information about the black soil that there shouldn`t be any people starving in the world or not being able to grow a good yield

reply to post by l77way


I would even hazard a guess that it would take an incredible amount of "Animal bone" to blanket the size of the area in question. I suspect maybe Human bones were mixed in. They were more plentiful and available.


I have no proof. You know, that whole ashes to ashes dust to dust thing native style.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by l77way
you would think in this day and age with this information about the black soil that there shouldn`t be any people starving in the world or not being able to grow a good yield

I agree, why isn't it that the people in the Amazon and elsewhere around the world taught to grow crops and be self sustaining..

reply to post by Aquarius1


Well... the indigenous people of the region certainly do not rely on McDonalds or Western exports to keep feeding their children.

They already are self-sustained, at least while the forests last and people don't destroy the soil in there.

In fact is the western civilization that doesn't know (nor wants) to be self-sustained. It's easier to keep exploring other parts of the world without having to re-think the life style or current economics.







[edit on 3-1-2010 by thomas_]