24 Km Long Underwater Wall in India Is At Least 8000 Years Old.

page: 2
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That tablet reminded me of the Iraqi marsh Arabs.


The same communal mudhif buildings seen in marsh culture today have also been seen depicted on Sumerian seals from 5000 years ago. There are also apparent similarities between the agricultural and irrigation practices of the ancient Sumerians and the modern day 'Ma’dan', as the present Marsh Arabs are known. The Sumerians also travelled in similar slender reed boats, caught fish and birds with long spears, lived on marsh islands in reed houses, and herded water buffalo, sheep and cattle.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-mourning-marsh-arab-way-li fe

Flood ready. tsunami safe, somewhat.




posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
*Waits for Harte and similar skeptics to pass this off as a natural occurance...*

Anyway, good find OP and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Will read into this deeper when i get some time.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Heliocentric
 

I still fail to understand why scientists, who by their very nature and profession is to seek the truth and to understand how things work, are so reluctant in this area.

Seems counter productive to me..


I think once they have invested so much effort into things making sense in one way, it becomes difficult for them to accept new information that could counter previous explanations. It could "flip their world upside down," which means admitting they were wrong about a lot of things. It also means starting all over again, or trying to integrate the new knowledge with the old, if possible. In this sense, they reject things that don't fit into their equations, like a religious person might. Pretty unscientific, but it makes sense in terms of being human.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It's a wall found underwater. Unless it was built underwater, I don't see what makes it the product of an advanced civilization, regardless of where it is found on dry land.

There's plenty of mystery to appreciate about this discovery without the added hype and sensationalism.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daynight42
 


I can definately appreciate your position. After all, all we know is there is a wall, and it is underwater. Everything else is merely speculation. There is no need to jump to the most sensational theory first.

I think the most important thing to determine is how old the wall is. Then we can start talking about ancient and "advanced" civilizations.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
I'm concerned about a growing trend here on ATS - every morsel of old ruins being described as "advanced" civilisations without evidence in some cases - this is a case in point. Right now we have a long wall.

Whilst completely fascinating, it is arousing suspicion about a possible agenda/ - it is putting out an idea that is not supported by any evidence in this case.

1. We all know that a civilisation/s existed before what many call the great flood in many of our religions
2. There have been many ruins underwater that have been discovered over the past decades

I do love reading these posts, but the "advanced civilisation" angle, when not supported by any known evidence, should be in a speculative like forum


I suppose it depends on how you define the word "advanced". It is a rather flexible word after all.

Were the ancient Greeks an advanced civilization? Yes they were. With the investigation of the Antikythera mechanism, we now also know they were far more advanced in mechanics than we even remotely suspected before, which makes them even more advanced.

Ar we (the Western, industrialized world, or whoever you want to read into it) an advanced civilization? Logistically, technologically yes. But in terms of resource managing we're surprisingly primitive, and inferior to many ancient civilizations. Socially and ethically, I would also say we're behind many of our ancestors (there are not that many equivalents in ancient cultures of people walking into McDonald's and shooting people down just because they can't find any meaning to their lives). So you see, there are many ways of using the word.

If we're talking about the underwater wall outside of Konkan coast, I would say that it was built by an advanced civilization. Advanced in the sense of social organization. A 24 km long wall is a building site, and you need to organize a building site. It takes a certain amount of manpower and a certain amount of work hours. Someone has to quarry the stone and someone has to pay for the labour. You need an economy to do it. I would personally exclude that it was done by hunter gatherers. You need at least an agrarian society, probably a city state society with some type of centralized government to pull it off IMO.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Depends on what you see as advanced. Technologically speaking the Roman empire was a hell of alot more advanced than Feudual England. If the situation reveals a socitey that was more advanced than alot of things that came after it (as implied by massive irrigation works probably on a scale to todays) It will cause a major and spectacular rewrite of modern history.

Still i'm sceptical in pretty much any of these new age/ancient civ theories. Could be another piltdown man operation where stuff is planted or misinterpreted to play into the hands of a world view. In this case it could be Indian nationalism just like how British imperialism tried to rewrite history on a dozen occasions. Or some archeologists trying to sell some books on the back of an interesting if speculative theory.

My favourite part about all this if it is true is when we get to go through all the old books that never saw this coming and burn them because their theories are outdated.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by eagleeye2

Its interesting how sea level was way lower back then.

I remember reading somewhere, here on ATS, about a submerged road or bridge that looked similar. But this one seems to be west of the maintaind, ill try to find the thread back to compare the location. Anyway, i say thanks for posting this I really like those finds. tbh i'm pretty sure ancient India hides alot of secrets.

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Well now that you've demonstrated the ability to drag your hairy knuckles across the keyboard why don't you try to mash the keyboard some more and hammer out your own theory and or perspective on how this "WALL" could have found itself under the ocean during a period in human history when were supposedly closer to simple stone age hunter/gatherers etc? Unless of course you're just here to criticize others....


OMG .. I'm in tears LOL.. thx Slayer bro ~!! I can't add to this trolls comments and if they should come back.. well.. maybe they'll take a more humble approach........

BTW.. haven't you completely CRUSHED the Platinum level member by 10k stars ??


On topic ..

Yea.. VERY VERY COOL ~!!!

edit on 22-7-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-7-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Damn it. I have been slaving myself silly trying to cure obesity, so one day I can think of being "advanced". When all I had to do was built a wall.

Anyway, it cant be real because the Bible told me so.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte


Really? The oceans rose over 140 meters since 10,000 b.c. Why do people come up with crazy theories to explain the simple.

Are you saying that the land sank because you dont believe the oceans level rose or is it because the wall could of been built by a unknown civilization thousands of years before history says it was possible?
edit on 22-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Thank you for the information! I hadn't heard of this lake before. That makes sense as to the ocean level rises. And the timeline fits. Whether or not this civilization was advanced doesn't really matter. What matters is that this wall, if the dating to approx. 8,000 BP is correct that's predating what we thought humans were capable of then. No matter how you classify "advanced", this Lake Agassiz and what we know about the water levels before the melting and after proves that this site was inhabited by people we don't know about - or at least haven't placed there. Thank you for the post - interesting information.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Harte

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte


Really? The oceans rose over 140 meters since 10,000 b.c. Why do people come up with crazy theories to explain the simple.


Thats odd. Your own posted image on the previous page says the rise is half that or less since then.


Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Are you saying that the land sank because you dont believe the oceans level rose or is it because the wall could of been built by a unknown civilization thousands of years before history says it was possible?


Considering the thing is only 3m below today's sea level, I don't see how either means of flooding puts it outside any reasonable historical timeframe.

Actually, I only say it because many people never stop to think about that fact, assuming every flood is due to rising water and it's not. That, and I happen to know that the part of the Indo-Australian plate the area in question is located on is actually known to be measurably sinking.

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Actually, I only say it because many people never stop to think about that fact, assuming every flood is due to rising water and it's not. That, and I happen to know that the part of the Indo-Australian plate the area in question is located on is actually known to be measurably sinking.


Britain is slowly tipping eastwards into the sea, with the west rising accordingly. The Earth moves in mysterious ways. And one of the most interesting aspect of major water movements is that the Earth's surface will adjust to these changes of pressure and exposure. These adjustments presumably occur over long periods. When the glaciers relieved their pressure, the Earth will have adjusted. When the water settled, considerably elsewhere, the Earth will have adjusted. Wherever there are plate tectonics, geographically, combined with major movements of water related to the major glacial melts, we can assume that there will have been a correlation of rising water levels and seismic activity. Perhaps?



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Harte
Actually, I only say it because many people never stop to think about that fact, assuming every flood is due to rising water and it's not. That, and I happen to know that the part of the Indo-Australian plate the area in question is located on is actually known to be measurably sinking.


Britain is slowly tipping eastwards into the sea, with the west rising accordingly. The Earth moves in mysterious ways. And one of the most interesting aspect of major water movements is that the Earth's surface will adjust to these changes of pressure and exposure. These adjustments presumably occur over long periods. When the glaciers relieved their pressure, the Earth will have adjusted. When the water settled, considerably elsewhere, the Earth will have adjusted. Wherever there are plate tectonics, geographically, combined with major movements of water related to the major glacial melts, we can assume that there will have been a correlation of rising water levels and seismic activity. Perhaps?


Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.


But the thing is, why does it do that? What is it reactive to?

I was reading that the sea levels in the meditteranean. at the peak of the last glacial melt, were rising by about 15 cms a week. I'm not sure of the rate elsewhere. In geological time, the changes that led to the melt, the effect of such vast redistributions of water, would have also led to subduction activity to adapt to both external and internal changes to the Earth. As well as volcanic and seismic changes. Given how we now understand the biosphere to work, however partial that understanding may be, there must have been whole chains of events that however spread over geological time, would have increased awareness of a sentient species population of the living nature of the planet.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Harte
Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.


But the thing is, why does it do that? What is it reactive to?

I was reading that the sea levels in the meditteranean. at the peak of the last glacial melt, were rising by about 15 cms a week. I'm not sure of the rate elsewhere. In geological time, the changes that led to the melt, the effect of such vast redistributions of water, would have also led to subduction activity to adapt to both external and internal changes to the Earth. As well as volcanic and seismic changes. Given how we now understand the biosphere to work, however partial that understanding may be, there must have been whole chains of events that however spread over geological time, would have increased awareness of a sentient species population of the living nature of the planet.


Subduction zones are created when a chunk of continent breaks off and falls into the mantle below.

This usually happens where two plates are coming together.

It takes millions of years for the chunk to drift down throught the semi-plastic mantle. In the meantime, the continents move on. As they drift, they leave the subduction zone and part ways with the other plate that they were up against for so long.

But the chunk continues to fall, and the subduction zone stays where it is.

The Eastern part of the Indo-Australian plate is currently drifting over such an ancient subduction zone. In fact, a huge swath of that continent is today under the ocean to the East and Northeast of Australia.

That's why Australia is bobbing up and down (in geological time.)

The other side of the plate - the western side of India, is undergoing it's own subduction as it presses into Asia, forming the Himalayas. Thats' the locale this thread is about.

Harte



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

The other side of the plate - the western side of India, is undergoing it's own subduction as it presses into Asia, forming the Himalayas. Thats' the locale this thread is about.



So...in geographical time, the Indian sub-continent crashes into Asia and the impact forces the Himalayas up, and continues to do so. I understand that much. I think. I found this, I am sure, fascinating article...


The most spectacular example of a plate convergence event on Earth is the motion of the Indian plate towards Eurasia at speeds in excess of 18 cm yr−1 (ref. 1), and the subsequent collision. Continental buoyancy usually stalls subduction shortly after collision, as is seen in most sections of the Alpine–Himalayan chain. However, in the Indian section of this chain, plate velocities were merely reduced by a factor of about three when the Indian continental margin impinged on the Eurasian trench about 50 million years ago. Plate convergence, accompanied by Eurasian indentation, persisted throughout the Cenozoic era1, 2, 3, suggesting that the driving forces of convergence did not vanish on continental collision. Here we estimate the density of the Greater Indian continent, after its upper crust is scraped off at the Himalayan front, and find that the continental plate is readily subductable. Using numerical models, we show that subduction of such a dense continent reduces convergence by a factor similar to that observed. In addition, an imbalance between ridge push and slab pull can develop and cause trench advance and indentation. We conclude that the subduction of the dense Indian continental slab provides a significant driving force for the current India–Asia convergence and explains the documented evolution of plate velocities following continental collision.


www.earthbyte.org...

...unfortunately it is beyond my scope of understanding, as yet, we live and learn, one day it may make perfect sense, but until then, does this mean that India's coast could be bobbing up and down like Australia? Presumably, there is some general momentum upwards, responsive to impact, but is it also, at times, being re-aligned by the subduction process? Lifting back up to level it out or the such like.

I apologise for my gross ignorance, and/or silly questions.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
YAY!

Another piece of the puzzle of mankind's past.

I think that is the big discovery here,
a lot of our missing/destroyed history is slowly being uncovered as we get to explore the ocean a bit more.
Awesome find!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


I have taken several flights in the Indian Ocean, over the eastern coast of India. Due to my Profession which is related to Defence. While flying in one of the Army Helicopters I had spend close to 8 hours flying the same route every time. Just 12 Kms away into the Bay of Bengal, I saw several underwater structures Like these. At first I thought it was just the reef , the color of water on either side of the structure is same. On the other side of these discontinuous underwater structure are Huge Thorium Oxide deposits, this info was passed on to me by the Oceanographic department scientist who was traveling along. He said, however, it is only in this strip of water near these submerged structures, we observed these deposits of Thorium Oxide. We cant see them else where along the east coast. The ancient Kalinga region, as it was known during the Ashoka The great and the 9 unknown men's times is adjacent to these structures on the coastal land stretching from Vishakhapatnam, Andhra pradesh to Puri in Orissa.
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to carry any of the cellphones or cameras while I am on these flights to the naval bases and test ranges. I have wished a 100 times to click the pics. But, I cant.





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join