I thought this'd be about Baalbek and it's about the Tepe's!

These must be how the Sumerians learned about the Precession of the Equinoxes.

They did succeed to calculate the sphere of the Earth (finding the fractional points between the Equator and the Pole and measuring the distance)!

Do you think they were there long enough to calculate that it took 2,160 years for the Earth to move through each Zodiacal ‘house’ and thus 25,920 years to complete the cycle through all 12 (also the period it takes the solar system to complete its journey around its galactic center)?

Yeah but that is definately L O N G before the Pyramids (any of them)!




[edit on 2010/2/24 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]

Originally posted by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU
Yeah but that is definately L O N G before the Pyramids (any of them)!

Long before the era of the Egyptian pyramids, but not before the Sphinx, which some fringe anthropologists have calculated possibly exceeds 10,000 years in age.

See, there is no Egyptian record of who built the Sphinx. What we know from ancient Egyptian records is that the Sphinx was already ancient before the advent of Egyptian Pharaonic civilization. The pharaohs would, occasionally, call for the Sphinx to be repaired and repainted, out of respect for whomever originally built it; but no pharaoh can take credit for building the thing.

Some of the most convincing evidence of the true age of the Sphinx is it's very obvious erosion by water. Wind erosion is one thing, but it's characterized by lateral erosion. The Sphinx, on the other hand, shows abundant evidence of vertical erosion, as from exposure to rain over the millennia.

Thing is, North Africa is not known for its rainy seasons — even in the time of the Pharaonic dynasties, North Africa was largely a desert. Add to that the fact that the Sphinx was buried up to its neck in sand for thousands of years, and it kind of makes you wonder how its body became so heavily eroded by RAIN.

Well. Obviously, the Sphinx was built in an age when North Africa had a considerably wetter climate — perhaps even a lush tropical climate. The Sphinx weathered in that rainy climate for a few millennia before North Africa went dry, burying the Sphinx in sand up to its earlobes.

Which means the Sphinx would have to be on the order of 10,000 years old or older.

Who built the Sphinx is anyone's guess. But it's apparent that they already had a spiritual civilization — one that revered animals as gods, perhaps.

— Doc Velocity

As for the deliberate burial of the sites, that's a poser. However, there are only a few known reasons for burying things.

1.) To protect the sites. This makes sense if the original builders found themselves under invasion from another culture. They might indeed bury their religious sites to protect them from destruction at the hands of "unbelievers."

2.) To erase the sites from history. This is usually what invaders do — they rush in, trying to damage and destroy and erase whatever icons the defeated believers held sacred. It's a power grab, of course, driving the believers underground, so the invaders can erect whatever new religious icons and sites they see fit.

We see this same sort of historical revision all around the world to this very day — whether it's secularists demanding the removal of the Ten Commandments from state property or black activists demanding the removal of the Confederate stars and bars from state flags. It's no different than the jealous Pharaohs of Egypt chiseling away the faces of their predecessors from stone monuments. It's historical revisionism.

I'm inclined to think it's the former reason, they buried the sites to protect them from invaders.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 2/25/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by RedBird (from the other thread)
I appreciate Doc Velocity's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd be a bit less aggressively confrontational with his posts.

Honey, you don't even know what "aggressively confrontational" means. Try sitting in on a conference of anthropologists discussing the origins of civilization sometime. THOSE GUYS are aggressively confrontational. Try discussing Egyptology with Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities — THAT GUY is aggressively confrontational.

You would never guess it from their meek television personas, but those guys are first-class ass holes. I am nothing by comparison.

Originally posted by RedBird (from the other thread)
You can't have social organization OR complex stone construction without first attaining agricultural surplus. Without agricultural surplus, there can be no specialists - everyone in a clan/society must be involved in the production of food in order for the society to survive.

I disagree. I don't believe that megalithic building is a leisure activity. I don't believe it's something you do when your rice stores are full and everybody is well-fed and happy and has time to specialize.

I think megalithic building was inspired, as in inspired from beyond. That's where our greatest architecture and art and music and everything else originates — in SPIRIT and in recognition of spirit.

That's why people crash jets into buildings... NOT as an experiment in thermodynamics and structural physics, but as a blow against the spirit, right?

Our greatest structures aren't so much utilitarian as they are aesthetic, they are inspired works. That's why we go to great trouble and expense to make our structures beautiful, above and beyond functional.

Everything about an aspiring civilization is spiritual and miraculous work, not mundane and tedious and monotonous work, as the secularists would have us believe.

And that's why I accept the OP as a confirmation that spirit precedes civilization.

— Doc Velocity

Is this the site where they found all the stone circles, eerily similar to Stonehenge, and the circles Basque regions?

There also a great many copper tools in these sites?

Originally posted by kwatron
These 'gods' were not the benevolent beings they have painted themselves as having been. Yes they taught early man agriculture, metalwork and alloy making etc...

You make great points, and, yes, I'm wide open to the notion that prehistoric super-civilizations existed.

Let's clear this away first: Prehistoric does not mean primitive or unsophisticated. There's abundant evidence — collecting dust in museum basements and university storehouses — that something approaching a super civilization existed here on Earth in ancient times.

There's too much evidence, in fact, that somebody came in here and mined this planet. I'm not speaking metaphorically, either. From the extensive prehistoric copper mining around the Great Lakes to the prehistoric coal and uranium mining in the Colorado Rockies, it's obvious that somebody came into the North American Continent with a need for copper and gold and coal and uranium and god only knows what else, and they mined it deep (talk about 800 feet deep, which is extraordinarily deep for primitive man to dig) and they mined it in prehistoric times.

Our good friend (not) "Jim Brandon" said that there were some coal miners out West who broke into an existing tunnel at a depth of around 800 feet. It was an old mine they had discovered, but really old... The exposed coal showed signs of oxidization, meaning that it had been worked with advanced mining methods — venting air through the mine.

It had been mined in the ancient past, 800 feet down, leaving no topside disturbance. Questions abound.

Naturally

Millions of pounds of copper were taken out of the Great Lakes area in the dim past, but there isn't enough recovered copper in Native America to match that quantity.
I know that's a dead-end argument, trying to prove who mined what and where in the hell did they take it?

I know this... There's not enough copper trinkets and copper axes and copper jewelry and all that other coppery crap in all the Museums and Reservation gift shops in North America to account for the millions of pounds of copper missing from the Lake Superior region, specifically.

Maybe they took it back across the ice to Scandinavia and peddled it across Europe in the Copper Age?

Or maybe they smelted the ore, cast a few hundred million pounds of copper ingots, shuttled their coppery payload up to the mothership and she departed for the Kessel Run.

Anybody remember the Kessel Run?

— Doc Velocity

Interesting find. These sorts of things always fascinate me because it just proves the theory that time erases history. While I believe that we have already advanced to the same or a higher level of technology and culture as humans in the distant past, we would be hard pressed to find evidence of it. Erosion and decay do a pretty good job of hiding that.

From the allegorical evidence I have seen (in various myths, etc.) I have a theory that the earth has seen a modern style civilization of humans as far back at 25,000 years ago. There was, as is common with humans, some bad fighting and perhaps some natural disasters and that culture was devestated, leaving us with a genetic bottleneck (which has been surmised through genetics) of about 100K humans on the planet. These humans did not know how to tend to what was left of the civilization they had grown up with. They tried to survive in the best way they could, reverting back to a stone aged society. The historical record decayed and humans were left to ponder about the history of their great great great grandparents.

If you can imagine a future in which by some means, we as humans suffer a great plague or ice age. Our society crumbles and most of our great monoliths fall into ruin.. What would be left? Our stone buildings, perhaps. The Lincoln Memorial would likely be interpreted as a temple to a god of some sort. But our distant ancestors would not necessarily be able to understand that they had "been there" before.

Anyway, it's all just guess work, really. Almost impossible to provd, but a great thing to ponder.