Mankind's Lost and Forgotten history. A Perspective

reply to post by Hanslune


Thanks.

After all these years I never knew how you felt about those certain possible aspects.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: far from it, here is a question for you what percentage of the GT site has been excavated? One can speculate based on nothing, a tiny percentage of information or the full range, in general the full range will lead to better and more accuracy in the speculation.

Hans: The how does GT fit into your theory as it DIDN'T do that?

Well I had already stated that I didn't believe Gobekli Tepe to be a habitation site, but allowed for that possibility in addressing you given that you seemed restricted by your professional sensibilities from reaching such a firm conclusion due to the incompleteness of the excavation to date, however, since you concur that there is no signs of habitation then I will ignore your previous vaguaries. Simply put, Gobekli provides enough information to be the an exception that proves the rule. There are a number of similar sites which similarly did not 'evolve' into conurbations, and there is very clear and defined reasoning as to why those sites did not evolve to support habitation, just as there is at Gobekli Tepe.

Firstly, GT is nowhere, it is on the path to nowhere, it has no obvious water source, though I should imagine at some point there must have been a spring of some kind there, it is not suitable for human habitation, permanent or otherwise. So for what is it suitable? The landscape has changed considerably of course since GT was in use. The forest, the animals...all gone. For comparison we can look at the Carpathian mountain range perhaps as it, for a few years more at least, pretty much as the Taurus would have been then, a dense mix of flora and fauna, all sorts of ferocious beasts wandering about. Given the presence of obsidian in the region, it is likely that the hunters in this region were highly regarded and highly successful, and had developed additional skills as butchers.

Agriculture, crop based farming preceeded pastorialism. Until the domestication of animals for food, hunters would have remained valued.

With the arrival of pastorialism, the economy of hunting would have fallen, and so would it's reverence within the wider community. Since Gobelki was only significant to hunters, and not on the way to any other resources, after most of the trees had gone, there was no need for it and it was absorbed by time.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: Yes you can but you do so based on insufficient data, at best you'll have an unevidenced speculation, which you can certainly do but again we won't really know what GT was untill a great deal more work is done.

While I agree that GT has many more secrets to reveal, it is patently clear that animals are key here, wild animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there have been almost no humanoid votives found?

Originally posted by Hanslune
Hans: Why would you not speculate now? You can and are, the point is your present speculation will be most probably wrong, think flexible speculation to adapt to new information not conclusions without sufficient evidence.

What exactly do you expect them to find at GT that is going to so change my conclusion? I don't mind being proved wrong, but by proving me wrong, it would also suggest that all previous archaeological finds, on which I frame my conclusions are incorrect too. Why is GT so different?

reply to post by OuttaTime


There was a fantastic documentary on the other week on BBC regarding the Amazon basin. Due to the forest clearance, hundreds and hundreds of Earthworks have been revealed showing a much more highly developed culture than had previously been imagined. While it had always been suspected that such a culture must have existed at one point, the inability of westerners to penetrate into the forest for so many years had precluded exploration. What these new finds have revealed is that not only was the culture even more developed that previously perceived, but that it was us that collapsed it. Based on the writings of the very first westerner to make the journey along the river, the location of some of those Earthworks correspond to reports circa 500 years ago. It is believed that the diseases we brought ended that civilisation, and that it's collapse was purely due to a lack of labour. And that means that in a matter of a few decades human progress was completely halted.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I'm surprised I haven't seen it Sounds interesting. I had heard of tribes in the Amazon that want nothing to do with the civilized world, nor did they want outsiders trampling around on their sacred grounds and temples.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

I was referring to the really ancient Aegean.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fde840ea31d2.jpg[/atsimg]

That's what I was trying to let you know, Slayer69. I'm not sure where you are quoting this information on the Aegean Sea, but the maps are completely incorrect. Especially the one that you linked to above. It looked nothing like that in the Aegean at the LGM. And I'll link to plenty of free online nautical maps for you to see the actual sea depths of the region.

The actual Saronic Gulf, Argolic Gulf and Petaloi Gulf looks like this at the Last Glacial.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0cdd02a3236.gif[/atsimg]

None of the Cyclades islands connect to the coast. Not Andros, not Milos, none of the Cyclades. The sea levels drop anywhere between under 300 meters to under 600 meters between the Cyclades and the mainland of Greece. So they definitely were not connected at the LGM.

Detailed online nautical chart of the North Cyclades
(if you notice Andros doesn't connect. The water is too deep.)

Detailed online nautical chart of the South Cyclades
And absolutely none of the Southern Cyclades connect to the mainland. It's sea depths of 600 meters and down.

More links of Nautical maps of Greece/Turkey Coastline
All Cyclades Islands Nautical Sea Depths

Greece nautical sea depths by region

Nautical (sea depth) maps of Turkey Coast

Sea-Seek nautical maps
Sea-seek usually has all sorts of nautical charts all around the world, but you have to look up the region that you want by name of island or name of body of water.

The current coastline dates back to about 4000 BC. Before that time, at the peak of the last ice age (c. 16,000 BC) sea levels everywhere were 130 metres lower, and there were large well-watered coastal plains instead of much of the northern Aegean. When they were first occupied, the present-day islands including Milos with its important obsidian production were probably still connected to the mainland.

The present coastal arrangement appeared c. 7000 BC, with post-ice age sea levels continuing to rise for another 3000 years after that. The subsequent Bronze Age civilizations of Greece and the Aegean Sea have given rise to the general term Aegean civilization. In ancient times the sea was the birthplace of two ancient civilizations – the Minoans of Crete and the Mycenean Civilization of the Peloponnese.[2]

This site that you are quoting here is completely invalid. I would never drop the coastlines at low at 130 meters at the LGM. Most scholars place them between minus -100 meters to -125 meters below present at the LGM. And I've done maps of both ends, the -100 meter scale and the -125 meter scale. After making such detailed maps for 7 years with about a 14 disk collection of nautical charts that I've collected over that time.... I'd actually say that in the Aegean, based off sea depth structures that you're looking more at minus -112 meters below present at the LGM. There's a few areas where underwater sea depth measurements look like the land might have connected at -117 meters below present. But that might be during a previous Ice Age and not the last Ice Age cycle. I have a bunch of maps on the -100 meter scale from 2004-2007, but after 2007 I started switching to the -110 meter scale. And perhaps I will drop it down to -120 if I can get the appropriate underwater carbon dating of materials to show that it is deeper. But until scientists actually collect the underwater samples and do some form of scientific dating method on it-- I'll be sticking with the -110 meter scale.

The data you quoted claims that "The current coastline dates back to about 4000 BC." That is totally false. The Roman section of Alexandria sits underwater between minus -12 meters to -8 meters below present sea level. So the coastlines at present did not exist even in Roman times. That means that when the Romans conquered Egypt and built their port on Alexandria, the sea levels were most definitely minus -12 meters below present.

When looking at Ancient Greece (hundreds of years before the Roman empire) there is documentation that the island of Chios was still connected to mainland Turkey and Chios became an island during Ancient Greece. Chios connects to Turkey at minus -18 meters below present sea level.

So when I do my "Ancient Greece" coastline maps, I drop them down to an even -20 meters, which is slightly before Ancient Greece.

The site that you quoted said "the present-day islands including Milos with its important obsidian production were probably still connected to the mainland". That data on the island of Milos is completely incorrect. Milos was never connected to the mainland at any time. Milos is like the island of Hawaii. The island of Milos formed over a hot spot in the Aegean basin. Milos is a volcano-formed island. So it never connected to any part of mainland Greece ever. All species of animals that exist on the Milos-Kimolos-Polyaigos chain were animals that flew, sea mammals that swam there (like an extinct sea elephant with tusks), or they were imported animals after Milos was colonized. Here's a very, very detailed map of what Milos group looked like at the LGM.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb1a385d3d3c.gif[/atsimg]

And here's a miniature animation of Milos group (volcano formed islands) from the Last Glacial coastlines to present coastlines. The 4th screen on my mini-animations should all read "Present", but there seems to be a glitch in them so they are showing "Ancient Greece" for 2 coastlines. Not sure what's causing the glitch in the animations...but I will have to try and fix it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32bcebadc0fe.gif[/atsimg]

Prehistoric Crete

Cretan history ....Based on this, it is thought that Crete was inhabited from the 7th millennium BC onwards.

It said on that one that you were quoting Wikipedia. Wikipedia is wrong on that one. If you google the tourist sites on Crete, nearly all will say that Crete was colonized during the 8th millenium B.C.E. Some sites contend the middle of the 8th millenia B.C.E. or 8500 B.C.E. Here's another source.

History : Although we do not know exactly what Knossos was, it is traditionally called "the Palace". Excavations have showed that there was a settlement here in the 8th Millennium BC, perhaps even before that, and that a palace stood here as early as in the 4th Millennium BC.

History on Crete

Which means that the assumption that some form of Levant/Palestine group colonizing the islands in the Aegean would be invalid. The flooding coast of West (southwestern) Turkey caused the groups to invent their own boats. Necessity was the mother of invention. As that coastline flooded, the groups living there were separated from the mainland and stuck on islands (where the Dodecanese connect to Turkey). So they invented boats, round about the Younger Dryas or before. (8800-8000 B.C.E.). Most of the Cyclades (which were not connected to the mainland at the LGM) were colonized by boat around or before the middle of the 8th millenium B.C.E. I've seen one site that contended a find approx 8700 B.C.E. on a Cyclades island. Crete is definitely colonized by 8500 B.C.E.

And the group colonizing them had boats large enough for livestock. Especially when you are looking at the island of Crete. Crete separated from mainland Greece 200 MILLION years ago when only lower mammals like mice existed. Being that's so, Crete's mice evolved into completely different species than any other form of mice on any main continent. And those mice had no predators for millions of years. The only predator they may have had was birds that flew to the island and an ancient extinct sea elephant with giant tusks.

So when Crete was colonized-- the group imported mountain lions by boat on their ships and released them on the island to hunt down the mice and get rid of the mice-overinfestation. The group also brought domestic livestock with them in the 8th millenia BC. So were not talking about row boats or canoes here. Were talking about ships large enough to carry mountain lions and domestic livestock. And even if we don't have the physical remains of one of the ships...we know that it wasn't row boats.

The group colonizing Crete also brought with them domesticated crops, such as Aegilopoides einkorn wheat, peas, barley and herbs. AND THEY CREMATED THEIR DEAD. Which means it's impossible to date the people by their cremated remains, so to date them scientists either have to date their crops or the other animals they imported. Unless they get lucky and someone got stuck at the bottom of a cliff that wasn't cremated.

But looking at Cyprus....Cyprus too was colonized by the group coming out of the Aegean first, rather than a Levant/Palestine colonization. Levant/Palestine groups at the time still had burial practices similar to the Natufians which included burial pits.

On Natufian burial practices in Levant/Palestine ...

"Examinations of burial pits have shown that most likely a bunch of stones were put on a corpse to smoothly make it swallow into the ground. The process might have taken from days to weeks depending on the weather and ground conditions."

But the first group to colonize Cyprus around 8500-8300 B.C.E. cremated their dead, just like the group colonizing the Aegean cremated their dead and the group colonizing Crete cremated their dead. And Cyprus was similar to Crete in that it too had an over-population of mice. Crete imported mountain lions by boat and released them on the island--Cyprus imported the domestic cat and released them on the island. Both islands were overpopulated with mice and the mice had no predators for millions of years. So the first signs of humans to both islands--they imported cats (different breeds of cats) to get rid of the mice over-infestation so people could live there.

Early Taming of the Cat on Cyprus: 8300 B.C.E.

Cyprus is an interesting island in that it is strategically important to the Eastern Mediterranean. Everyone tries to conquer Cyprus and each group for thousands of years conquering it tried to erase the histories of the previous groups. But talking in terms of this prehistory...the easy thing to remember is...

1st group colonizing Cyprus (8500-8300 BCE) CREMATED their dead.
2nd group colonizing Cyprus (c. 7500 BCE) EXCARNATED their dead.
3rd group colonizing Cyprus (c. 6500-6000 BCE) had INHUMATION BURIALS with all bodies oriented to the West. And the orientation of their bodies is very important for this 3rd group because during inhumation burials, they orient the body to the origin of where they came from. The 3rd group is NOT from Levant nor Palestine or the bodies would be oriented to the east. Since the inhumation burials all orient to the West, this 3rd boat group comes from the west.

When looking at Cyprus, one cannot assume that the people colonizing it came from Levant. There's too much contrary evidence to suggest westerly Mediterranean origins of some of the groups and Aegean origins of some of the groups.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

The evolution of modern wheat and it's subsequent usage, is one of the best examples that we have of the role urbanisation has on a micro-climate and how that could have led to the dessication of the Middle-East, in my opinion. I don't know if you saw the recent BBC documentary 'Lost Cities' about the NASA infra-red images that are being used to map ancient Egypt....well, when they looked at the Sahara, what they found was hundreds and hundreds of small villages. These indicate that they were contemporary to the Nile culture. Which suggests to me that as the Nile culture became more successful, the villagers abandoned their land for the cities, partly due to demand for labour, partly in search of an easier life. The land left untended, already deforested to allow it to be cultivated, was unable to stand the elements and turned to sand.

No I haven't seen this BBC documentary. By chance do you remember offhand what timeframe they are referring to? What point between the Eemian melt and Last Glacial in terms of thousands of years?

They would have had to abandon their cities because the Nile would have been drying up. It happens during every freeze cycle of each ice age. The Sahara desert doubles in size at a freeze. And during each melt peak in between ice ages (like now) the Sahara gets more moisture and even if sea levels rise another 5 meters, parts of the Sahara will acquire savannah steppe grasses.

Climate and Vegetation of Africa for 150,000 years

I'm beginning to understand something involving ancient humans and aliens. Where I'm beginning to lean is that ancient humans WERE the aliens! If we could clone a human from ancient Egypt, how surprised would we be? Would that person have what we would interpret as powers?

I think we have all been done a disservice by our education. Schools taught or gave the impression that civilizations older than us were more primitive than we. I'm beginning to wonder, were they? Is it just plain arrogance that we assume this?

Look at how much we've accomplished in our short time frame, while there are civilizations that double our rule, what were they able to accomplish. Perhaps it's because we aren't finding cell phones and television we assume they were cave men?

I believe that as the Hoppi Indians state, there were at least 3 previous creations or ascensions of mankind. Each one may have had technology or knowledge based around some other.....talent. In our creation/recovery we have based our civilizations around technology. Suppose the 1st generation were based on being physically superior and maybe even telepathic? Suppose the other creations of man were also different and specialized in other talents?

Instead of needing to build ships powered by fuel, they understood a different type of energy or perhaps magnetism? Some may have had access to teleportation or levitation. They were still humans, it just that they decided to go a different route. Perhaps the Tessla of their time, wasn't swept under the rug?

As has been stated earlier in this thread, it doesn't take much to return us to the Dark Ages. If we had a comet to strike Earth and cause multiple world-wide disasters, killing billions of people, it wouldn't be long before the survivors of such an event were talking such things as they "remember" when we had something called electricity and air conditioning.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

There was a fantastic documentary on the other week on BBC regarding the Amazon basin. Due to the forest clearance, hundreds and hundreds of Earthworks have been revealed showing a much more highly developed culture than had previously been imagined. While it had always been suspected that such a culture must have existed at one point, the inability of westerners to penetrate into the forest for so many years had precluded exploration. What these new finds have revealed is that not only was the culture even more developed that previously perceived, but that it was us that collapsed it. Based on the writings of the very first westerner to make the journey along the river, the location of some of those Earthworks correspond to reports circa 500 years ago. It is believed that the diseases we brought ended that civilisation, and that it's collapse was purely due to a lack of labour. And that means that in a matter of a few decades human progress was completely halted.

This has been another area of interest for me.


As far as the Europeans arrival. They not only brought with them their Guns and Steal but Germs. When they first arrive way back in 1493 they brought with them "Smallpox" and other diseases which they didn't know [At the Time] they were doing. Remember the diseases like the Black Death decimated the old worlds population. The reason why it was much more destructive to the New world is that the local Indians had no immunity to such diseases. In the Old world the smaller percentage of the population which had their roots in or came from agrarian life. Survived due to the fact that they had already built up an immunity to the disease. [They would get very sick but would survive] Where as again in the New World the Indians had no such defense. Only those who were genetically strong enough survived. [10% or less]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75bcbce5f5cd.gif[/atsimg]

To give you a possible example back in 1542 Francisco de Orellana sailed down the Amazon to the Atlantic. During his trip he encountered very large populations [Amazon] cities spread all along the River. When later expeditions [80+ or - years later] arrived to verify his stories they found very little evidence of large population centers. For the longest time many considered his stories to be fabrications. [He also mentioned "Giant female" dominated locations] "Amazons" which the river get's it's name from.

However, it wasn't until fairly recently in modern times through the use of Satellites and other technology that some have found evidence of these "Large population centers" some have speculated that he and his party who were the first Europeans down the river unknowingly spread death. Wiping out their populations. The jungle along the Amazon grows at a fantastic rate 80 something years is a long time in the Amazon. One could imagine that within a few short years the Jungle reclaiming the land once used by those endogenous people.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/13677a1c0f7a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/619d2f2470de.jpg[/atsimg]
Ancient Amazon Cities Found; Were Vast Urban Network

Lines mapped from village earthworks radiate outward from the central power seat in the southernmost of two recently identified clusters of ancient Amazon towns.

Dozens of densely packed, pre-Columbian towns, villages, and hamlets arranged in an organized pattern have been mapped in the Brazilian Amazon, anthropologists announced in late August 2008.

Here is a great video series.
If you haven't seen it and are interested in this topic this is a great start...

Also...

The issue with any Amazon lost civilization or Culture is the Jungle itself. It quickly reclaims everything. Good thing we now have Sats which can spot those former locations. One of the major problems with early Proto-civilizations is that many of them never needed to develop the wheel or even writing. Look at ancient Egypt, the earliest periods, no wheel. Yet they developed and prospered.

In South America there is no real way to know just how many cultures flourished and then died out for various reasons and there could have been many groups of mound builders. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af1f430ecdfb.jpg[/atsimg]
These groups may have never developed writing nor used large stone blocks. The jungle would have reclaimed such locations and rain would have just simply washed away the evidence of mud mounds and huts, what we are left with are simple stone carvings on wall surfaces such as what was found in Brazil "The Ingá stone"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b23496967937.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MapMistress


Well you've done a lot of interesting research and I can tell you've spent a lot of time and effort on it. Let me ask you a question though. You came to the thread obviously interested in the topic but seem preoccupied with debunking something? I've reread your replies and from them what I can tell you have some sort of issue with what is a universally accepted history of "one of the Cradle of Civilizations" locations. Now, I'm not saying it's the only Cradle of Civilizations locations NOR that what is believed about it's history is completely accurate either. NOTE: I also referenced other "Cradle of Civilizations" locations "Nile Valley, Euphrates River Valley, Indus valley and the Yellow river" AND there could be more we haven't found yet.

In reference to "Coastal migration" I'm referring to the "Out of Africa" migration of the Earliest Homo-Sapiens-Modern-Man which occurred roughly 70,000 to 80,000 B.C. I'm not talking about settlements in the Aegean or Southern Europe or the Black sea area etc during the period of 15,000 to 10,000 B.C. to as recently as 4,000 to 6,000 B.C. I'm sorry if you missed my intentions on that. "The Coastal Migration" was again, in Reference to Homo-Sapians earliest spreading/migration across the globe.

And for the record, I'm not saying it was the only Migration route either. Some lines went inland. I feel you may have taken that angle out of context. What the individual history for each region in the more recent past say 15,000 to 10,000 B.C. comes much more recently in our time line than the "Coastal Migration" of a much much earlier period.

The information you have brought to the discussion is very fascinating and interesting and could shed new light on the topic. I have to ask you another question. From your Avatar I get the impression that you believe "Atlantis" was located somewhere in the area of the Aegean Sea? Is this correct?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4426ff165974.gif[/atsimg]

Which shows us an animation where the habitable land has contracted. By which process you haven't explained in this thread yet. Also, [and I think this is very important] maybe you have missed the thrust of this thread? I'm not sure if you have taken the time to fully read the premise of this threads intent based on these two previous threads content? It might help to read these two to get a better understanding of the topic.

Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1

and

Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-2

So, Atlantis isn't the sole focus or thrust of this thread. It is a reference point. I could just have easily used the "Great Flood" of the bible or the known history of the Indus Valley etc etc etc. What is being theorized on is the possibility of a Ancient Ice Age Civilizations and or Cultures [At varying levels of Megalithic development] spread all around the globe which suffered catastrophe of some sort [In this case] The rising oceans from the ice age melt off. Which could have been gradual at times and destructively rapid at others.

This isn't an attempt to actually locate Atlantis. If in fact Atlantis existed then that's a plus. If you have evidence I'd like to read your theories on the topic. I'm sure you have your theories on that possibility. [Yet to be heard] I'm looking forward to your further contributions. They are interesting.

Epic post and thread.

Flagged and starred so I can take it in at my leisure, this one isn't getting skimmed! Thanks!

reply to post by yakuzakid


Please be sure to stop by after you're finished and give us your perspective both pro or con.

All replies are welcomed.

Originally posted by MapMistress
No I haven't seen this BBC documentary. By chance do you remember offhand what timeframe they are referring to? What point between the Eemian melt and Last Glacial in terms of thousands of years?

They would have had to abandon their cities because the Nile would have been drying up. It happens during every freeze cycle of each ice age. The Sahara desert doubles in size at a freeze. And during each melt peak in between ice ages (like now) the Sahara gets more moisture and even if sea levels rise another 5 meters, parts of the Sahara will acquire savannah steppe grasses.

These were post-glacial villages, I would at a push say that the Younger Dryas may have caused the abandonment and clustering towards to Nile initially, but it would not explain the structures that the thermal and infra-red imaging has revealed. I think it is much more likely due to the de-vegetation caused by agriculture combined with the reduction of the limit of the flood plains, affecting irrigation and fertility, caused by the systems of irrigation used on land closer to the urban areas along the Nile.

Originally posted by MapMistress
That's what I was trying to let you know, Slayer69. I'm not sure where you are quoting this information on the Aegean Sea, but the maps are completely incorrect. Especially the one that you linked to above. It looked nothing like that in the Aegean at the LGM. And I'll link to plenty of free online nautical maps for you to see the actual sea depths of the region.

I think the meditteranean basin started refilling about 5 million years ago, though salt samples taken from below silt levels indicate that it partially filled several times and evaporated prior to that. Which is why it so salty. And when it did begin to fill up, it took several thousand years to do so, hence the trenches caused by water cutting through from the water falls of the rivers and sea, at the Gibraltor strait, falling several hundred feet across the basin. The water fall at Gibraltor is estimated to have been bigger than Victoria falls. Must've been quite a sight. Once it did fill up, it completely changed the climate making it inhabitable, before it would have been a horrible hot dry place, the infilling of the sea created the paradise.

And as you say, the lack of human habitation on these islands is supported by the remains of the pygmy elephants, hippopotamus, deer and often very large rodents, due to a lack of predators, and that they were wiped out in all cases within years of humans reaching the islands.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
And when it did begin to fill up, it took several thousand years to do so, hence the trenches caused by water cutting through from the water falls of the rivers and sea, at the Gibraltor strait, falling several hundred feet across the basin. The water fall at Gibraltor is estimated to have been bigger than Victoria falls. Must've been quite a sight. Once it did fill up, it completely changed the climate making it inhabitable, before it would have been a horrible hot dry place, the infilling of the sea created the paradise.

I agree with this premise. I've often looked at Google Earth and noticed this as well. Especially near the mouth. If we angle the image for a better perceptive we can see what appears to be an under water troth or ancient flood/river valley up near the opening to the Atlantic.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8d61f4971fb.jpg[/atsimg]

And as you say, the lack of human habitation on these islands is supported by the remains of the pygmy elephants, hippopotamus, deer and often very large rodents, due to a lack of predators, and that they were wiped out in all cases within years of humans reaching the islands.

All very true. Nobody is saying they were "Inhabited" It could have been an isolated area. Much like present day where there are still isolated areas connected to present day dry land formations. Doesn't negate the possible scenario.

reply to post by sir_slide


I enjoyed seeing your map! 1+1=common sense.

Fantastic post, am half way through doc vid (lost sound!!) really very interesting prospective, am definitely going to check out your other threads now.
Thanks for posting this

Originally posted by AussieAmandaC
Fantastic post, am half way through doc vid (lost sound!!) really very interesting prospective, am definitely going to check out your other threads now.
Thanks for posting this

The feedback is much appreciated. Let us know what you think when you've finished both pro and con.

All opinions are welcome

I am not saying I know how old the human race is, I have strong particular beliefs as to how old we actually are but I will not state what they are at this time... I will however question this theory on how old man is based on evidence as you say. In all of my searching, I have not seen or read a article that says we found a full human skeleton older then say 6000 years old...More then a few fakes, yet they claim to have found dinosaurs bones supposedly hundred of millions of years old and these are full skeletons that should have rotted away to nothing a long time ago... Considering we are not talking about the huge dinosaurs like brontosauruses, also smaller ones as well, in fact smaller ones then human bones...I mean seriously how can we find full skeletons of creatures so much older then us and not find any of ourselves...I don't care if someone says humans are only 6000 yrs old or a million years old...I want to know where all the skeletons are?? If someone out there knows, please inform me, throw up a link to a site or newspaper clippings, whatever the case may be..People in general can speculate all they want about everything under the sun or beyond for that matter, my question as stated is...Where's the proof?

Originally posted by Stephen3267
I have not seen or read a article that says we found a full human skeleton older then say 6000 years old...


People in general can speculate all they want about everything under the sun or beyond for that matter, my question as stated is...Where's the proof?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8152501bf479.jpg[/atsimg]
Earliest Australian

THE FIRST INHABITANTS : Last May, the Australian National University released this photograph, taken in 1974, of the skeleton of a man from Lake Mungo, NSW which the university has now dated at between 56,000 and 68,000 years old..

More info here ---> Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1