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.

 

Massive structures and an Ancient Atmosphere

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   


When you have ruled out the probable and the possible, even contemplated the improbable and still haven't found the answer perhaps you should listen to a metaphysical explanation.

There was a very small man named Edward Leedskalnin who single-handed constucted the Coral Castle. This man cut and moved blocks of coral weighing many tons. He later single-handedly loaded and moved the entire thing to Homestead, Florida.

Here is the metaphysical part. The Earth is alive, check out the video, the earth pushes up (repels) the stones. the air lifts (attracts) the stones and the stones guide themselves laterally by pushing against the vertical EMF.

I have managed to manipulate the ability of the Earth effects at Stonehenge, to get a good sense of the effects pause the video at the picture distortion to see the interactions.

I do not claim this to be anything but a metaphysical concept.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Ahem, actually the city off of SW cuba is about 5000 feet down..thats one mile nearly...


What's the name of the city? Who's done the archaeology on it? What culture is it associated with? Where are the artifacts and what do they look like?

Many of these "underwater city" reports are made on the basis of "we saw it on Google Earth/satellite and nobody has visited it but we just KNOW it's a city and not artifacts." Frankly, the "proof" is in the artifacts recovered, not in what someone thinks they see.


The Chances that ton sizes even multi ton size were handled by roman etc engineers are obvious, but these are HUNDREDS OF TONS! thats not really in the same baabeack at all.(forgive the pun)


Baalbek was built by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally known as Heliopolis (not to be confused with the Egyptian Heliopolis -- this one's in Lebanon) the giant stones are part of the Temple of Jupiter Baal (a variation of the Roman god.) These were the finest engineers in the entire world, who built tall structures out of concrete and lifted 60-100 ton stones a full 60+ feet into the air (as temple roofs.) There's nearby stones of 300 tons that they'd moved into place. They had iron and the wheel as well as pulleys and complex machines and managed to create triremes (something we can't do today though we know they existed) -- and they had both the horse and the ox for muscle power.

They had the Pentaspastos -- the five pulley crane. I don't know if you've ever worked with multiple pulleys, but a block and tackle arrangement (3 pulleys) reduces 100 tons to 25 tons of effort:
science.howstuffworks.com...

Five pulleys makes it even easier.


The story best describing the pyramid construction is the rocking chair runner shaaped planks which were fitted to the square stones to make a round part which was easily rolled up a ramp to be put in place.


I don't think that's an accepted theory. Wood was a pretty scarce commodity in those times. Wood also easily crushes under multi-ton blocks and if the stone isn't perfectly balanced (some of those stones are badly cut) the whole thing won't roll at all.

Besides, we have tomb paintings showing the Egyptians moving blocks up to position on a temple using levers -- paintings that date to the time of that temple's construction. We don't have anything showing them using the wheel until they (finally) get chariots around 1600 BC... and even then the wheel isn't widely used. Wheels aren't useful in deserts or marshes and they didn't build many roads.


as far as lifting these g=huge blocks that weigh in the hundred or more ton range, i dont think so.......


Roman engineers did it with cranes at Baalbek and other places where they had to lift 60-100 ton blocks (or more) 60 feet in the air to the roof of a temple they were building. You should take a look at what some of the ancient engineers did -- you'll be impressed at how clever they are.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


Right. At least as far on the macroscopic scale.

I don't know much about it, but Newtonian physics go out the window in the atomic scale.

From what I gather science does not have a good understanding of what gravity actually is.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
i think this is very possible. but, what i dont get, is that several people on this thread have been saying that your theory is backed up with the fact that dinosaurs were so big, and about giants and all that, but, if the earth was smaller, then wouldnt the people, or, dinosaurs or whatever is living on it be smaller too? its like saying that you have a big family so you buy a tiny apartment, and then when your living by yourself you buy a huge house. excuse my ignorance, im just not very well experienced in this particular field xD



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainCrunch123
 


I feel that the argument for animals growing bigger due to oxygen levels falls down when we look at the evidence before us.

If this were the case, and given the time Micheal Jackson spent in his oxygen tent he should have been around 15 foot tall.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   


The funny thing about metaphysical evidence is that it is always present and can be photographed. I have found this to be true for all the ancient stone structures and earthen mounds.

Mediocre intelligence is blinded by ignorance, the superior intellect by arrogance. I really think they should change "The age of reason" to "The Age of Acquired Ignorance."

To deny the existence of things you can neither see nor touch will also cost you air, gravity and electricity. Oh yes, one other thing, Knowledge.....



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch123
i think this is very possible. but, what i dont get, is that several people on this thread have been saying that your theory is backed up with the fact that dinosaurs were so big


An interesting point, but dinosaurs WEREN'T all that big. Most were under 6 feet long. Many were dog-sized and smaller. We know of over 500 species of dinosaurss -- but there are only 35 species that are true giants -- 40 feet tall and taller, and they lived at the end of the age of dinosaurs (late Cretaceous.)

We call them "Titanosaurids": www-personal.umich.edu...

If you look at the data about "how much oxygen there was", you will see that the time of the Titanosaurids (60 million to 100 million years ago), the amount of oxygen isn't that high and was going down:
www.pnas.org...

It reaches its highest amount during the "Permian Extinction" (the biggest extinction event ever) and declines after that.


excuse my ignorance, im just not very well experienced in this particular field xD


Asking questions and looking at science sites and googling is a good way to learn!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   


reply to post by sixswornsermon
 


From what I gather science does not have a good understanding of what gravity actually is.


Its about time someone said this!!! I was wondering when all you people who put your full blind HOPE, FAITH and TRUST in science would realize that:

1. Science changes almost daily

2. Science is MAN-MADE! So for all you who cry that religions are man made (most are mind you, execpt Biblical Christianity) your precious sciences falsely so-called are just as man made, and, like number one ↑ CHANGE constantly.

3. As for gravity, the basis of this whole discussion, scientists still are fumbling over whether its a pull down effect, or a push away effect. Still no clue as the CAUSE or reason behind it, only visibly proofs of gravity that scientist then comment on!

4. It makes me laugh seeing you guys rely so wholeheartedly on other pathetic, desperate MEN and WOMEN who create "sciences" basically for government grants, self recognition, or because they were "told to" by the powers that be.

Now don't get me wrong, science has helped incredible in our human history, but when you replace science for God, and text books for the Bible then you have total chaos and jungle mentality like you see in the news daily. Because if you teach children they came from animals, then the can grow up and act like animals.

Back to the Bible, or back to the Jungle.

edit on 29-1-2011 by KingKeever1611 because: guess?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Baalbek was built by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...



Roman engineers did it with cranes at Baalbek and other places where they had to lift 60-100 ton blocks (or more) 60 feet in the air to the roof of a temple they were building. You should take a look at what some of the ancient engineers did -- you'll be impressed at how clever they are.

Baalbek, was already famous even before the Romans came into view. They built their temples upon the original "giants" stone to impose their own "giant gods".
in the picture below you can clearly see the original superior huge "trilithons" contrasting starkly to the masonry works done by the Romans on top of it.


In jerusalem there is also a hotly contested "sacred area" by jews, xtians and muslims,called the wailing wall.underneath these "Walls" is also a "trilithon" with some identical marks as that of Baalbek.
And even before Herod built his famous temples and walls on top of it,people of the ancient times were already doing pilgrimage in this area.

upload.wikimedia.org...

15 years ago i read GH Fingerprint of the Gods and i remember seeing a B/W pictures of Mars in the photo section of that book...and I think the OP is very close to his giants and a not so ancient atmosphere ideas...of which i have some interesting things to share with...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Baalbek was built by the Romans. en.wikipedia.org...



Roman engineers did it with cranes at Baalbek and other places where they had to lift 60-100 ton blocks (or more) 60 feet in the air to the roof of a temple they were building. You should take a look at what some of the ancient engineers did -- you'll be impressed at how clever they are.

Baalbek, was already famous even before the Romans came into view. They built their temples upon the original "giants" stone to impose their own "giant gods".
in the picture below you can clearly see the original superior huge "trilithons" contrasting starkly to the masonry works done by the Romans on top of it.


In jerusalem there is also a hotly contested "sacred area" by jews, xtians and muslims,called the wailing wall.underneath these "Walls" is also a "trilithon" with some identical marks as that of Baalbek.
And even before Herod built his famous temples and walls on top of it,people of the ancient times were already doing pilgrimage in this area.

upload.wikimedia.org...

15 years ago i read GH Fingerprint of the Gods and i remember seeing a B/W pictures of Mars in the photo section of that book...and I think the OP is very close to his giants and a not so ancient atmosphere ideas...of which i have some interesting things to share with...



edit on 29-1-2011 by alphaMegas because: sorry double post. imust have hit the button 2x...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by KingKeever1611
 


Only the bible is true? Back to the bible or back to the jungle?

Sort of ignores all the societies that flourished without it but given the choice.

Definitely back to the jungle, every time. I'll be the one in the loin cloth, second tree to the left.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


That's an interesting theory, but since Roman era artifacts have been found in excavations under the foundation stones, it doesn't bear up with the evidence.

Should also be noted the heaviest stone mved by man without the aid of machinery was the Thunderstone, which weighed at 1500 tonnes.
It was moved 4 miles to a barge in comparison to the Romans having to move the stones from a 1/4 miles away quarry that's uphill from the site.
edit on 29-1-2011 by RuneSpider because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


That's an interesting theory, but since Roman era artifacts have been found in excavations under the foundation stones, it doesn't bear up with the evidence.

Should also be noted the heaviest stone mved by man without the aid of machinery was the Thunderstone, which weighed at 1500 tonnes.
It was moved 4 miles to a barge in comparison to the Romans having to move the stones from a 1/4 miles away quarry that's uphill from the site.
edit on 29-1-2011 by RuneSpider because: (no reason given)


there's no problem about artifacts found under those massive stones, rather, what bothers me is how those massive stones were placed on top of those artifacts...

edit on 29-1-2011 by alphaMegas because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Either reply about the topic at hand or don't post at all....children these days, my my.

As for the Bible, there is a possible connection for an expanding earth theory in the Bible found in a few verses, but nothing definite. This would account for the extra mass, and thus gravity increasing over the years if all the science is correct to begin with.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by alphaMegas
 


Well, the quarry being uphill certainly helped. Much easier to move something downhill.
The Roman's technology was certainly more than up to the task, as demonstrated at other sites, and from the example of the Thunderstone which was moved more recently.
They would have leveled the site a fair amount before laying the foundation stones.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingKeever1611
Its about time someone said this!!! I was wondering when all you people who put your full blind HOPE, FAITH and TRUST in science would realize that:

1. Science changes almost daily


I certainly hope so! Wouldn't it be awful if we lived under the same conditions as some of the areas did in the Middle Ages and things like learning human anatomy (by looking at corpses and dissecting them) got you burned at the stake and you could be executed for trying to figure out the mechanics of the motion of the Earth around the sun?

The Earth is one gigantic, lovely puzzle. As we learn to make better tools, we learn more about it.

Science, like history, MUST change on a daily basis. News stories we see every day become part of our history. Science discoveries made every day become part of our science.

If you prefer an unchanging science, you might like to move to an area of the world where the only education given is religious education (some of the 3rd world countries) and no one is troubled by the idea that science changes because it isn't taught.


3. As for gravity, the basis of this whole discussion, scientists still are fumbling over whether its a pull down effect, or a push away effect. Still no clue as the CAUSE or reason behind it, only visibly proofs of gravity that scientist then comment on!


Which scientists would this be? Can you post a link to some of their sites? I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the sciences and I know we certainly have standard gravitational equations and they're all "pulls."

I can give you a few formulas if you like.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

reply to post by Byrd
 

I certainly hope so! Wouldn't it be awful if we lived under the same conditions as some of the areas did in the Middle Ages and things like learning human anatomy (by looking at corpses and dissecting them) got you burned at the stake and you could be executed for trying to figure out the mechanics of the motion of the Earth around the sun?


It would be awful if we still lived under catholic rule with Christians AND scientists (often times one in the same) having to go through what you just described.


Science, like history, MUST change on a daily basis. News stories we see every day become part of our history. Science discoveries made every day become part of our science.

If you prefer an unchanging science, you might like to move to an area of the world where the only education given is religious education (some of the 3rd world countries) and no one is troubled by the idea that science changes because it isn't taught.


Yes, like you said, science changes almost daily. Isn't that quite a shaky and unsure foundation to base your believes on? I would be a shame if all I really believed is science, to wake up and have my beliefs changed over night, day after day.

But the major argument I have about your above educated comment, is your statement about 3rd world countries with mainly religious educating. I'll not be "PC" about this and will let you know why. In these countries you speak of, the "religions" they are all taught is catholicism, mohammedanism, or polytheism. (Plus, unlike your above comment, science is taught in these countries i.e. India, Many European countries, Mexico, and the middle east countries use the lead the world with their sciences and math.)

In America, the one country FOUNDED on the Holy Bible, you have the greatest scientists and best humanity helping technology developments. All because of our freedoms here, thanks to the Bible, from where we get out "Rights".



Which scientists would this be? Can you post a link to some of their sites? I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the sciences and I know we certainly have standard gravitational equations and they're all "pulls."
I can give you a few formulas if you like.

Just google it yourself, there are countless debates out there over this issue. Or ask sixswornsermon about it, he commented on this as well. ↑ Good argument though, you just didn't say "what religions". I will.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
For an expanding Earth I want to link you to a thread I've created a while ago. It contains the work of Dr. James Maxlow. His work can be viewed and read as he has video taped one of his presentations.

The Expanding Earth hypothesis.

For moving stones there was a guy who did that by himself...



How awesome was that !?

I've got to say that South American sites leave me pretty amazed. I was told those guys didn't even invented the wheel and only saw one for the first time when the Europeans got there...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingKeever1611
Yes, like you said, science changes almost daily. Isn't that quite a shaky and unsure foundation to base your believes on? I would be a shame if all I really believed is science, to wake up and have my beliefs changed over night, day after day.


I'm not terribly intimidated about discovering new things about the world and universe every day, no. I am more disturbed by changing concepts of "what is socially acceptable" and "what is rude" and "what is appropriate clothing for little girls" and so forth -- human redefinitions of human social behavior.


In these countries you speak of, the "religions" they are all taught is catholicism, mohammedanism, or polytheism.

...and Protestantism and other religions you haven't mentioned which emphasize that the only true knowledge is that contained by an unchanging book of religion and punish women and girls for trying to learn to read and write.


(Plus, unlike your above comment, science is taught in these countries i.e. India, Many European countries, Mexico, and the middle east countries use the lead the world with their sciences and math.)


But not, as mentioned, in the heavily religious areas.


In America, the one country FOUNDED on the Holy Bible, you have the greatest scientists and best humanity helping technology developments.

Actually, it wasn't founded on the Bible (otherwise our laws would begin with the whole 613 laws of the Torah, slavery would be legal, and it would be illegal to NOT worship the deity of the Bible since that's one of the divisions of the law.) Nor (sadly) do we have the greatest scientists or technology. Japan leads us in robotics, Hawking the physicist is hardly American and so on and so forth.


Just google it yourself, there are countless debates out there over this issue.

There are, but you mentioned scientists, so I wanted to know which scientists were arguing about "push versus pull" so I can look at the papers. At this point, the only scientists I find working with gravity are all using Newtonian equations and quantum energy... don't see any arguments about push among the scientists.

That's why I asked. I do pause to read papers if someone has links (but not watch videos... they're tiresome and I can't skip ahead to the points to ponder.)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join