Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who Were the Ancient Megalithic Builders?

page: 9
247
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


Thanks for the video.

I'm listening to it now as I get some household paperwork done AKA Bills




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Dear Slayer69

Wonderful job bringing your ideas together.

The photos are superb, and in many instances, ones I'd never seen before. Especially liked were those of cut stone that appear to be about 20 feet in height and width, and possibly 200 feet long. WOW!

I've an idea which may work into your assumptions. Perhaps when some of the early stonework was accomplished when earths atmosphere was thicker and easier for humans of whatever group, to utilize the air and give them more physical power and greater stature or at least greater muscles. Then hundreds of thousands of years later our atmosphere became thinner, and the first group died off, possibly due to the results of the thinner atmosphere leaving modern man who can live in this thinner atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I appreciate the feed back.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Stay tuned.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Yukitup
What evidence would a massive comet strike in Antarctica leave? Probably just tales of a massive flood, massive depopulation, and an angry God, I guess...


My guess has always been that the impact happened on the North American ice sheet, triggering a collapse of a previous rise in the Mid-Atlantic plate, pounding Atlantis with a tsunami and dropping it into the sea, allowing warmer currents to reach the Arctic ice, and creating a massive rise in sea level around 10,000 B.C., corresponding to the Younger Dryas.

Or something along those lines. It wouldn't have much of an effect on Antarctica, at least not until global temperatures rose.


Interesting - thanks!

(star)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Benchkey
 



I've heard this theory as well. That may have been the case for the Dinosaurs or even the Mega fauna but I'm not sure how well that works within the given time line of man.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Seriously...

You could and should write your own thread along those lines.


I could but I won't. I write other stuff, so I don't want to start threads. Anyway, you are much better in stirring the pot. I'd probably fall too heavy on the untrained in poetical method


But, here is one question which tends to be neglected throughout history. Starting with ancient philosophers, who saw slavery as something "normal" and in most cases never discussed it. There is a lot of censorship, I'd say our history is 99% truth proof.

Let's just see a few examples. The British exterminated the brutish Tasmanians, to literally replace them with their own criminals. Approximately at the same time, with the discovery of neanderthal man, they needed some justification. Everyone else was turned into brutes. Scientists had a task to do. They falsified Neanderthal skull, protruded its jaw, added larger canines, to make them look like gorillas, and - lo! - they slandered gorillas, through a coordinated effort (remember King Kong), made them into brutish bloodthirsty abducting animals, while now we know that gorillas are the opposite of that. British had to hide another mass murder - 30 million Indians starved to death by forcing them to plant cotton instead of food, so that British textile industry can work...

Here's another crime of the British - how come they had so many criminals, enough to populate Australia, a whole continent? They created them. They criminalized crown subjects and then deported them (Russians did the same, sending millions to Siberia, and there are other examples).

Another example, major religions, like Christianity or Islam were imposed by most brutal methods. Those who didn't want to become believers were in most cases killed. And all evidence of different mind frame was mostly destroyed.

Homo sapiens boasts with its achievements, they say: "We have such samples like Leonardo, Galileo, Picasso, etc." But they don't boast with true animals like Alexander, August, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin - other stay hidden (Like De Gaulle, who massacred thousand in Madagascar, and in Algeria, and in Indochina...). No one talks about that, not really. We have "rebels" in Libya - but not a word in MSM about who they really are. Isn't that peculiar? Sarkozy...

My point is this: Things have be made in such a manner that science is used as cover for all kinds of crimes, and scientific explanations look very reasonable and acceptable. If you say a word against, there will be many sleeping agents suddenly awoken jumping at you to pick your eyes (just like when Israel commits an obvious crime, suddenly this forum is flooded with the walking dead).

People (homo sapiens sapiens or homo erecti?) have been conditioned to immediately react with denial when faced with truth. Why?

Because we have been conditioned to project, project ourselves and others into a "vision", "projection", "the reality" and we are totally dependent on its stability. If the picture starts to fall apart - ensues chaos.

This is why all media is under such strict control and the truth can be heard only on the margins, and there are only few willing to listen and look.

The key evolutionary advantage, very often named - perfected weapons. Weapons, supposedly, ensure survival.
Everybody knows that no one will survive, we all have to die. Yer, this idea of eternal living persists.

I claim that it is the IDEAS that survive, and THEY use us as fuel or food. Ideas survive thousand of years, and what is worst of all falsifications of truth is that "inventions" like science or religion are our greatest achievement. They are not. They have only one purpose, to perpetuate ideas (we call that - reason, and are very "proud" of it).

The "victory" of reason is homo sapiens sapiens'es fall, defeat, the darkest pit into which we have been thrown by our own weakness. I appeal to your intelligence, think about it. None of us survives more than 70-80 years. But "things" survive, ideas survive, major religions, governments, nations, tribes, organizations.

People are confused with Great Pyramid. What was its purpose. It was exactly what I'm saying: a political factory, a new technology which was invented 4-5 thousand years ago and immediately spread all around the globe. Magnificent, isn't it. It is technology which possesses us. Just look around and see how things happen - nation building, outsourcing - at what cost? In this world, right now, technology is investing enormous effort to bring down the labor cost. Modern pyramids dwarf the Great Pyramid - ABC, CNN, blah blah blah. The energy invested in those Great Walls is thousand times greater than energy used to build the Chinese Great Wall, or pyramids all over the world, or dolmens and menhirs and temples, put all together.

Homo sapiens sapiens is an advanced model of slaves. It is easily confused if kept ignorant. And this makes it a perfect android, simulation of the "thinking being" - poetically said: homo erectus posing as homo sapiens.

The goddamn missing link - there it is. In your own heads, in your unused brains which are already degenerating.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Well I think you have the potential to be a good writer.


Thanks again for contributing.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Thanks Slayer, your threads are always so thought provoking, and I love spending the time pouring through all your data and links and the additional comments of members. I'm putting my mark on here now for my ATS, and will take the weekend to indulge my historic fantasies!


Well I rely on others feedback to gauge where my next thread/threads are headed,




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Star and Flag! I enjoyed the thread, Slayer. You put together everything I had disjointed thoughts on. Thanks for putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I'm glad your notion contained only human and hominid explanations and nothing extra-terresterial. I always thought interbreeding of humans with hominids accounts for the various races of man.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


nice craftsmanship, writer.

you a r e deadly! this is totally deadly - i love you not using the word ‘primitive’ - that links directly to some of my versions of understanding our ancients of the old world. i love the connection you take into consideration in regards to the jomon and the ‘chinese version’ of migration.

well, i have read your thread but before answering anything in detail i now will read all the members responses. maybe others covered what i would have to contribute.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I didn't invent this. Philosophically, Hegel saw it in a more modern way. He saw history as Spirit, and the advance of technology as the advance of history. He was a believer, he claimed that the state is the ultimate form (and he meant German state) of perfected history.

It is obvious that man has to serve this encompassing idea which has many synonyms: history, technology, church, whatever institution there is to be served, and our place in such a projection is, of course, to serve - to be sacrificed and consumed (Moloch). It is a cannibalistic concept and I deem that all those sacrificial religious rituals are meant to support this idea. This is a huge momentum which drives human beings. Most common anthropological and paleo-anthropological approach usually neglect this subjugated position of man. On the contrary, it is often boasted as the "greatest good". But all totalitarian systems (including Plato's ideal State, in his Republic) insist that man must serve the society or state, empire, etc.

About those megalithic structures. We have them today in slightly different form. From Egyptian times, they adopted geometrical form, pyramid or obelisk (which is also a pyramid), or pillars, like in ancient Greece and Rome. Plenty of those today: in Washington, there is this giant obelisk. Many political, institutional buildings are imitation of Greek style temples. Most such structures are simply "great wonders". They are powerful attractors of human attention ant it is typical that they are shrouded in mystery: who built them and how, and most importantly: to what purpose? Impossibility to find an obvious answer is the key feature of these structures - this is how they keep working throughout history. They are, simply put: machines and their purpose is to capture peoples attention and awe. (Like TV in modern times, despite the contents, which is totally irrelevant.)

I think that those megalithic structures in prehistoric times were all in function of technology, both stone working and manipulation of stone (what took to create that huge slab in Baalbek?). I think the question is "why" rather than "who" or "how".


As for neanderthal/modern man mixture, unless carbon dating is actually very imprecise, it is hopeless to think there will be something in our tradition which connects us to neanderthals. 20.000 years is too long, and that old artifacts are very rare.

Right now, I think, the only science that can offer some answers is genetics.

Here is an interesting study in presence of neanderthal genes and features in men:

www.rdos.net...




Abstract

In the past there have been numerous theories for the cause(s) of autism, Asperger's syndrome, ADHD and Tourette syndrome. Most of these theories can at best explain small parts of these diverse syndromes. Many of them extend their findings in spectacular ways to be able to claim to explain larger parts of the autism spectrum with little success.

This theory approaches the problem from a new radical viewpoint. Instead of approaching autism as a disorder, brain defect or the result of poor socialization or parenting, it claims that autistics are fully functional.

All the areas that are central to autism are related to species-typical adaptations that vary widely between species. These include nonverbal signals, social organization, sensory acuteness, motor skills, general preferences, sexuality, physical traits and biological adaptations. Some of this diversity in autistics is poorly understood and virtually unresearched and therefore is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of this lack of research, Aspie-quiz, an online questionnary, is heavily referenced for these traits.

Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Aspie-quiz yields axises that seems to be related to the first Eurasian Homo, the formation of modern humans in Africa or South Asia and the hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe. These axises seems to be 1.8 million years, 150,000 years and 37,000 years, which fits pretty good with the archaeologic evidences available.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Star and Flag! I enjoyed the thread, Slayer. You put together everything I had disjointed thoughts on. Thanks for putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I'm glad your notion contained only human and hominid explanations and nothing extra-terresterial. I always thought interbreeding of humans with hominids accounts for the various races of man.



The ever popular ET did angle eh?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Theory of ET is very interesting. Here's what I think.
Advancement in genetics disqualifies Theory of Evolution.
Very simply. If we can do it, it is quite possible that someone did it before, and maybe many times.
There has possibly been genetic manipulation and, therefore, there is no difference between nature and technology. We don't know whether some species were engineered and then abandoned, taking their time to "evolve" on their own.
It is hypocritical to believe that we are the first and best in this Universe.
Many legends, like the one about Virakocha, are very elaborate and there are material proofs that someone did posses advanced technology in very old times.
Who were they, were they "us", maybe we will eventually find out, but as we technologically advance, it becomes obvious that this kind of momentum which "evolves" technology could have existed in many places and many times.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
s+f slayer, very thought provoking.

the cross breeding is interesting in itself.

how was that done? kidnapping? rape? raids?

there had to have some serious interaction between the groups and cooperation.

language/communication for 1, had to be common as even some ideals or they would just make war not love,

because lot's of people agree that lot's of people have the N gene.

to build those megaliths there had to be a sizable population of the big guys.

were they strong enough to move them things? i don't know if they could do it with just muscle.

the "less gravity" theory doesn't make sense since it would still be relative of what you could move.

look at the early astronauts, they couldn't walk when they got back to earth after along time in space.

the tower of babel story starts to make some sense.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EartOccupant
 


very interesting contribution.

i tried to find more info on the 'hunnebed' but apart from many pictures of the bed itself i can't find much else.

i wonder whether you have a link, possibly in english.

because i'm struggling with the translation of hunnebed as 'beds of the others',

to me it seems hunne would refer to the huns, many other sites called them hunnenbed (the plural of hun as well as a being genitive = the bed of the hunnen), and in german they are called hunnenbett. with the huns we would have the perfect connection to 'siberian' tribes migrating in manny directions over a long long period of time.

(i haven't read too far into the replies yet, well, yours is the first really, i hope this question is not covered yet. if yes, i will come across it)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


Probably all of the above.
That plus Neanderthal boy from wrong side of the cave meets a young Sapien girl from the upper East side.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



If, as it is presently accepted that modern man had interbred with Neanderthal and Denisovians wouldn't there have been a cross over period producing a half-breed/hybrid species? One which would have had possibly physical characteristics and mental attributes of both?

I'm not attempting to say they would have been a "Super Species" but something not quite us and not quite them. Also depending on where they lived they could have had varying physical characteristics and mental attributes of both to varying degrees.


Slayer, What you are talking about here is (or could be considered) heterosis (a.k.a. hybrid vigor).


the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. It is the occurrence of a genetically superior offspring from mixing the genes of its parents.


en.wikipedia.org...

There are numerous examples of this in real life. The first that comes to my mind being horse + donkey = mule (a superior entity that has the best attributes of both lineages).

Nonetheless, this could easily explain hypothetical early examples of beings with the combination of both intelligence and strength; as genetics has proven (through many examples) that these offspring not only posses the admirable traits of both species, but will also show that "H1" or "Hybrid 1" (i.e. 1st generation offspring) exhibit the greatest benefit (or attributes) of the mating of closely related species; whereas "H2", "H3", etc... (All subsequent generations involving H1 + H1 mating) exhibit degraded version of the original attributes.

Now; many species, that can interbreed; produce offspring that are infertile, which obviously was not the case here; as DNA shows the neanderthal lineage (or DNA) fragments continue to this day in the DNA of modern man. However, it does suggest that when interbreeding did occur, then the 1st generation would have been both stronger & more intelligent; and it would equally explain the diminished qualities of those traits, in succession, from H1 to H2, to H3, etc...

Point being that, not only could those hybrids have existed, but that WE could actually be are those hybrids...100s of generations removed.

Who were the ancient megalithic builders? We were! Only it was a very different version of what we are today.

my 2-cents.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


A larger brain is not necessarily the hallmark of "intelligence" I would argue a cerebral cortex has that distinction. So that begs the question- did the earlier hybrids or whatever they were have a cerebral cortex?

I put intelligence in quotes (can't seem to spell intelligence right!) to indicate I am aware it needs to be defined.

The problem I see in the OP's argument is that no matter how big or numerous or crafty the ancients were they HAD to have (or have access to) a superior form of technology (compared with today's) to cut, shape and transport stone that hard and that heavy.

A side note here is that these giants couldn't have been THAT large due to the fact we are told that they were sexually compatible with the much smaller "daughters of men".

Being skin and bones even though larger on average than us today, would not make a difference in the ability to manipulate the stones. The ancients had to have access to exotic technologies in order to do the things we see have been done obviously by somebody a long time ago. Even the example of the pyramids of Giza doesn't add up if you break it down solely to the numbers. There is no way they could cut, transport and install that many blocks in the time frame claimed by Egyptologists. When you consider the physical scale of the work to be done there had to be some way other than ropes and shear manpower.

Your example of the "poured" stones is a great one because there is some ancient writing which talks about some way of making stones lighter and more flexible which would surely apply to the characteristics of the stones at Machu Pichu and others around the world where they are like puzzle pieces and asymmetric. If you look into John Hutchison's work with frequency modulations and such (Philadelphia Experiment comes to mind where bodies were sticking out of the ship's walls and floors) where he can liquefy metals you might find an important dot which has never, as far as I know, been connected to this subject. Also the guy who built the Coral Castle said he "knew how the Pyramids were built" in order to manipulate extremely heavy stones. My money is on advanced technology being used by a more-advanced-than-we-are-today sentient species potentially with the same kinds of existentialistic hang-ups.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


"I think the question is "why" rather than "who" or "how".

I completely disagree. I think the "how" needs to be answered first because that would give us an indication of "who" and then before we ask the "why" we need to get over the answer to the first question.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 





does any one else picture a neanderthal sitting in a chair and pointing and saying "make it so."? couldn't help myself seeing that picture of patrick stewart!



WELL...

I did have this absolutely brilliant Thermodynamics Prof who physically looked like a Neanderthal or cross bred....

I am not kidding either. I was taking an anthro course at the time.


Super thread.

There is no reason to believe a hybrid cross did not spread over the earth and do great things.

One other fact to add to your information. Migrating groups would be more likely to run into each other and "out cross" That is breed with others who were not genetically close.

Once a group of humans became settled and started farming you would get inbreeding. I can not find the article (Seven daughters of Eve?) but one of the genetic studies showed a Neanderthal found in one part of Europe (the UK?) was related to all the people in the local area!

This indicates a large amount of inbreeding because people would not be moving around quite as much. With inbreeding you get a loss of size and vigor.

Therefore you Neanderthal/human cross WOULD be superior in size and vigor. (Cro magnon ?)





new topics

top topics



 
247
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join