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.

 

Who Were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

page: 17
251
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperTripps
 


Well there is no doubt he had something going. Some will post old pictures and say he used homemade cranes and lifts etc. Which true but, the ones in the photos would not haul or lift the largest ones he did. Nor can they explain how one small fragile old guy could do some of the balancing acts he pulled off with certain creations of his.

The whole place is amazing IMO.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




hello slayer.
an exceptional thread.
have you considered the possibility of an ancient (possibly global) megalithic standard system
of measurement? the megalithic yard as proposed by Alexander Thom (2.722ft +/- 0.002ft or 0.82966m
+/-0.061m). it is said that within the british isles this unit of measurement gave consistency to
most if not all neolithic structures.
if such a measurement were found to be global (in conversion) the implications would be astounding.
regards f.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 


You know, I'd come across that info before and, out of curiosity, I measured the length of my arm. And guess what? The measurement was almost the exact same as this supposed neolithic yard.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that:1) if such a measurement standard existed it seems it might have been based on the average length of an arm or 2)that there was no standardized system and the reason why there seems to be one is that neolithic man just found it to be common sense to use his arm(among other body parts) as a measurement tool(s). Although, Occam's razor would make the second explanation the more likely.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hey Slayer

Complete agreement; most if not all legends about giants were about people who seemed or were actually taller than someone else. It was also a way to 'glorify' the enemy by making him 'more than human' and thereby providing for a greater victory in triumph - or an excuse when one failed. Many cultures also tended to call people who might be taller or who had tall helmets, headdresses, 'taller' not a measurement but just a label. Sometimes this got moved over into giant. Kinda like many enemies tended to be cannibals, were evil, etc. The use of tall helmets to frighten the enemy was used up until the beginning of the 19th century by the Europeans in their soldiers helmets for this reason....

On your question about Pakal, I believe you could find the answer to the trivia question about Pakal in this book
Janaab' Pakal of Palenque: Reconstructing the Life and Death of a Maya Ruler. If you don't have access to it let me know and I'll trudge over the to the University Library and see if they have it.

Now there are and were individual giants too, people 2 to 2 1/2 meters tall
edit on 7/9/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Slayer69

Your theory seems to somewhat be supported by a University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer et.al. They say that there is DNA evidence of "archaic" humans interbreeding with anatomically modern humans somewhere in Africa during the last 20-60 thousand years. Furthermore, they transferred small amounts of genetic material to their offspring who are alive today.

If you'd like to read more about it, I'll provide a couple of articles for you:

Ancient humans were mixing it up

Evolution's past is modern human's present

I hope you find it helpful.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mad Simian
 


hello mad
points taken on board. i think it would be difficult to have a consistent system of accuracy across, say, the british isles if the standard was utilised from various builders arms. i am open to this possibility, however, alexander thom claimed accuracy down to the width of a human hair on the set-out of many of the sites he studied in the british isles and brittany. what interests me is the possibility that if a standard unit of measurement was reached and agreed upon way back when, it would support an organised intention to erect such sites across the isles, beyond and all the logistics involved.
i am still studying thoms' work as well as others who are elaborating and attempting to expand this possibility.
as one author in this field said (can't remember who) 'there seems to be a great wall in the history of civillisation' or words to that effect.
if the accuracy factor were found to be both consistent and global with the megalithic yard having the ability to convert comfortably into various other measurement systems, then i would guess we are facing an even bigger mystery here.
regards fakedirt.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 


Interesting to know. Seems like this could be a rare time when Occam's Razor is wrong.
Either way, I'll bet that Thom and others will eventually find out that the standardization occured because of the reason I postulated. After all, doing so just seems like common sense to me and it's my firm opinion that people back then had a LOT more of it than most do today.


I'll have to look into Thom's work. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Slayer,

It is obvious why you are one of the most respected members of ATS, yes? A most thoughtful and thought-provoking thread.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Peace



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Mad Simian
 



hello mad.
the jury is still out with regards to this consideration so occam's razor is still in play.
thom passed away in 1985 if i am not mistaken. his work is expanded by christopher knight and alan butler.
a link for you and those with interest. www.megalithic.co.uk...
regards fakedirt.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Now I'm not saying they are "Giants" nor do I agree with the below linked thread premise but it does address a "height" difference. If these crossbreed/hybrids were taller than average for the period [more so than the rest of the people in the region] it would have been reflected in their art IMO [In theory]. There is no way of knowing how "short" the shorter people were. They could have been on average 5'+.

Ancient forearm bone from Tall Man found at archaeological site in Okinawa:

Researchers have unearthed an ancient forearm bone from the Mabuni Hantabaru archeological site in Itoman, Okinawa Prefecture, believed to be from a Jomon period male roughly 169 centimeters tall -- much taller than the average for the period.




Also wasn't Lord Pakal said to be rather tall compared to the average height of the people?
He is often referenced as such. But I've never found [Maybe you could help me out here] found out exactly how tall he really was. Again, I'm not saying he was a "Giant" just taller than average for the period. Also he shows many facial attributes that were discussed in the OP.

Here is an example of his mummy and mask.




keeping with the premise of this thread they had a rather unique way of portraying themselves. Again, Sloping forehead, Slight brow ridge, Larger than average nose and a weak chin etc.




So from looking at it from this perspective they needn't have been "Giants" per say, just taller than the average person couple with increase in strength. Neanderthal on average was shorter than modern man.
edit on 1-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



What does that even mean? The average Australian, American and Canadian was taller than the average Brit up until the1940's or 50's. because of better healther and more numerous foods.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


That's all recorded history.
What we are contemplating are a possible "prehistoric" remnant memory or a possible remnant population.

edit on 9-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by steveknows
 


That's all recorded history.
What we are contemplating are a possible "prehistoric" remnant memory or a possible remnant population.

edit on 9-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


Or the bones of someone who had better fed ancesters compared to the bones someone who didn't.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Yeah or that too.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It was me, I have been keeping this from the world, I am a transformer and builder, time travelling builder extraordinaire.Resistance is futile.
We are Rigel4.

edit on 9-9-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie
Slayer69

Your theory seems to somewhat be supported by a University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer et.al. They say that there is DNA evidence of "archaic" humans interbreeding with anatomically modern humans somewhere in Africa during the last 20-60 thousand years. Furthermore, they transferred small amounts of genetic material to their offspring who are alive today.

If you'd like to read more about it, I'll provide a couple of articles for you:

Ancient humans were mixing it up

Evolution's past is modern human's present

I hope you find it helpful.


I appreciate the links.
I have my reading this afternoon all set.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4

edit on 9-9-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)


I appreciate the thread bump.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
No worries



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Yeah or that too.


This is why I like you Slayer.

Starry-eyed you ain't.

Harte



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I was just watching a special today on the great apes, it was talking about their strength, how one could flip a family sedan.

My first thought was "man what could humans accomplish if we where that strong"

and then I saw this thread today, never considered that maybe it wasn't homo sapiens building all the big monuments in the past.

Ive always thought that 250,000 years of modern man, and who knows how many more variants in the past, that we are the first to get organized? never made sense to me.

S&F

edit on 13-9-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
I was just watching a special today on the great apes, it was talking about their strength, how one could flip a family sedan.

My first thought was "man what could humans accomplish if we where that strong"

and then I saw this thread today, never considered that maybe it wasn't homo sapiens building all the big monuments in the past.

Ive always thought that 250,000 years of modern man, and who knows how many more variants in the past, that we are the first to get organized? never made sense to me.

S&F

edit on 13-9-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)


yes, it woke up many to that possibility....

but then again...anyone remember Coral Castle?

how'd he do it at 5 feet tall, 100 lbs lol

coralcastle.com...



new topics

top topics



 
251
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join