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.

 

What if a lost ancient civilization had telescopes and balloons?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
If a lost civilisation had telescopes and balloons they would have produced aerial maps...

Lo and behold...such maps exist...

Akushla




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte


More assumption - that these tribe members served in combat.

Obviously, nobody took naked savages out of the jungle and put them in foxholes. My point was that the Dogon have had plenty of contact with Europeans. The same Europeans whose astronomical theories about Sirius in the early to mid 1900's exactly matches what Griaule claimed the Dogon "knew."

Harte

Some of the Muslim west Africans (about 450,000) were involved in fighting in WW1 but I would suspect that the troops from places like Mali were probably used as service or labour troops. There werealso European visitors to the Dogon area involved in astronomy research and other issues. They were in no way 'isolated'.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
If a lost civilisation had telescopes and balloons they would have produced aerial maps...

Lo and behold...such maps exist...

Akushla


Howdy Akushla

...or so the fringe claim but in reality no such technology was used to create those maps; will this be claim for Piri Reis, Rosseli's, O. Fineas' or even better, one of the 'Pravada' articles?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by akushla99
If a lost civilisation had telescopes and balloons they would have produced aerial maps...

Lo and behold...such maps exist...

Akushla


Howdy Akushla

...or so the fringe claim but in reality no such technology was used to create those maps; will this be claim for Piri Reis, Rosseli's, O. Fineas' or even better, one of the 'Pravada' articles?


Howdy Hansmoon

Please enlighten me...

Akushla



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
Howdy Hansmoon

Please enlighten me...

Akushla


Howdy Akushla you previously wrote:



If a lost civilisation had telescopes and balloons they would have produced aerial maps...

Lo and behold...such maps exist...

Akushla


Actually Akushla you have made the claim so I'll let you decide what you consider support for (...such maps exist)

Note: The lune in my online name is not for the Moon but instead for the colour of my eyes as noted by a French speaking Danish antique collector relative of mine - who didn't like my given English based name and in that sense it stands for; a pale blue or green-blue glaze used on porcelain.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Actually, yes, something catastrophic occurred that wiped out the Clovis culture and megafauna throughout North America, and engendered the Younger Dryas period.

scholar.google.com... pact&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

If you look on GoogleEarth for the Carolina Bays, you will find evidence of the impacts: craters leading up to Canada, where the remains of a comet's impacted the Laurentide ice sheet around 13K years ago and caused a global megaflood.

I'm convinced that the so-called "Mayan" calendar is actually an artifact from this period and a countdown warning til the next re-occurrence of the stream that the comet's remains were part of.

In case you haven't noticed, the fireball incidence has tripled in the past 4 years, and is still increasing:

Welcome to the shooting gallery: fireball incidence 2005:1.28/day 2011:4.94/day
edit on 10-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


To counter that, I read Firestones, West and Warwick-Smith's book, The cycle of cosmic catastrophes, interesting but it was a bit far-fetched

Counter-arguments

Most of the data that the book was based on was provided by Allen West; who unfortunately has been found to be a fraud and his evidence and conclusions not supportable.

Allen West


West is Allen Whitt — who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies.


Lots of meteors? Not really the AMFR is not at historic highs?




edit on 10/12/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Interesting provenance on the moniker...

Franco Rosselli map
Orontius Fineus map
Zeno Brothers map
The Orions belt/pyramid complex 'map'
The Inca geoglyphs in the Nazca Desert, Peru
Aerial maps produced by Leonardo Da Vinci
Palaeolithic 'maps' of the night sky at Lascaux
The Nebra 'sky-disc'

I do not paticularly buy the open-ended explanations for some of the options you suggested...and to my knowledge, have never read a 'Pravda' article related to your suggestion...

It should be noted...my version of 'map' extends a little further than the topographical, earth-bound map...

The Orions belt/Pyramid complex 'map' is fascinating and singularly mysterious. While not a 'map' per se, it presents a mind numbing correlation which begs questions.

I am not one to swallow anything, 'hook, line and sinker'...and my original 'claim' addressed 'telescopes and ballons'...and hence, mapping. Anomolous items, including maps, exist...but then, if it don't 'fit in' to an 'authorised' timeline of history...it is FRINGED...and anyone, of any discipline who expresses an interest to fund research becomes a 'FRINGER' (if there is such a word), and anyone mentioning these same unauthorised, out of time, not fitting in, artifacts...is relegated to the FRINGE...from here, it is a simple procedure to insert the word 'lunatic' before it...

The, now defunct, library at Alexandria, was said to contain tomes of written material...burned and destroyed...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and since the event/s of Alexandria (for one!) are well documented, the evidence once therein contained is absent...what was contained within it?...maps?

Akushla



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by 001ggg100
 





He presents compelling evidence of such a civilization existing during the last Ice Age.


Compelling if you know nothing about geology, archaeology and biology however he does write well unfortunately its made up stuff or shall we say, agressively speculative!


Given that I have training both as an archaeologist (my major) and geologist (my minor) I believe I can speak to Hancock's work. He is a popular writer rather than an academic, but his writing still has merit. It's not as if it has no references. A book that is more to the point is his Underworld which discusses just such a civilization as OP is speculating on. I've talked about this many times on ATS, so here we again.

About 12,000 years ago the last Ice Age was ending. Indeed, we are still coming off it, which is where some of this global warming hysteria is coming from. In any case, the Ice Age sucked up a lot of water whereupon the sea levels were about 60 feet lower than they are today. The idea is that there was a civilization, perhaps more than one, that existed during those times. If you read both Indian and Japanese literature, it claims humans have been around for quite awhile. These civilizations were clustered around the coasts.

As the world warmed the ice was melting. This included Hudsons Bay in Canada where the ice over the water melted first, surrpunded by a land/ice dam. If you've ever been on the shores of Lake Michigan in winter you will recognize this phenomenon. Because the water is actually warmer than the land, ice melts over water first.

The ice dam got weaker as the earth warmed, and eventually it broke, sending water out of the Bay into the oceans, making the sea level rise, and wiping out those near Renaissance civilizations. The actual sea level rising is not speculation by Hancock. It has been well studied by academics. Academics have not adopted his theory, of course, but, strangely enough, they admit the exact same thing happened to a lake in Canada, whose ice dam broke, and the resulting flood swept through Eastern Washington State via the Columbia River valley and into the Pacific Ocean. You can see the results of this flood today as the top soil in that area was all but scraped away. So the mechanism Hancock suggests has been accepted by science.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99

Franco Rosselli map
Orontius Fineus map
Zeno Brothers map
The Orions belt/pyramid complex 'map'
The Inca geoglyphs in the Nazca Desert, Peru
Aerial maps produced by Leonardo Da Vinci
Palaeolithic 'maps' of the night sky at Lascaux
The Nebra 'sky-disc'

I'm not sure how any of these are meant to be evidence of a civilisation that had "hot air balloons and telescopes" that could make "aerial maps"??

The Zeno Brothers is a well known hoax that depicts fictitious islands and is accompanied by a very tall tale.

The Nebra Sky Disk is a disc depicting the night sky, not a map. The only knowledge required would be gained from simply looking upwards at night. I think most cultures are aware of the moon.

The same applies to the Lasceux cave paintings - again, not a map.

The only one that could be argued (in my opinion wrongly) to require an aerial view is the Nazca lines, and they are not a map.

Why do you believe the maps you have listed would require an aerial view to construct?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler



Given that I have training both as an archaeologist (my major) and geologist (my minor) I believe I can speak to Hancock's work. He is a popular writer rather than an academic, but his writing still has merit. It's not as if it has no references.


It is the quality of the references that is important, a reference to say, Hapgood is scientifically meaningless



The idea is that there was a civilization, perhaps more than one, that existed during those times. If you read both Indian and Japanese literature, it claims humans have been around for quite awhile.



Yes there is plentiful evidence for cultures but not technically 'civilizations' at that time. It is the a function of their religions to believe that, it isn't evdence of it actually being true.


These civilizations were clustered around the coasts.


How is this known? If all evidence of them was destroyed how can you then claim that they existed? Plus this goes against what the archaeological records shows - that the first civs developed in river valleys



The ice dam got weaker as the earth warmed, and eventually it broke, sending water out of the Bay into the oceans, making the sea level rise, and wiping out those near Renaissance civilizations.


Huh? If you would please determine the volume of the water released vs the existing volume of the sea - now determine how fast the water would rise?



It has been well studied by academics.


Which is why they don't accept what Hancock made up


Academics have not adopted his theory, of course, but, strangely enough, they admit the exact same thing happened to a lake in Canada, whose ice dam broke, and the resulting flood swept through Eastern Washington State via the Columbia River valley and into the Pacific Ocean.


Yes that happened but what does that have to do with a vast and Instantaneous rise in sea levels??


You can see the results of this flood today as the top soil in that area was all but scraped away. So the mechanism Hancock suggests has been accepted by science.


Ah no, not exactly it means Hancock has taken a known geological event and explanded it to world affecting size without doing the math.

Here is what really happened; the water levels rose - people moved away from them.....that is those that lived really close to the water, those that didn't, didn't move.

However a fantasy writer thousands of years later was trying to figure out how to explain why the civilizations he wants people to believe in cannot be found....wallah, claim they were all swallowed up by the sea and the people living there were to stupid to move as the water rose - and they left no trace of themselves.....lol

Oh and the water levels rose more that 60 feet (estimated at 60 METERS) but that was over an extended time line

Meltwater pulse 1a

Meltwater

Chart of sea level rise







edit on 10/12/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/12/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Howdy Akushla




but then, if it don't 'fit in' to an 'authorised' timeline of history...it is FRINGED...and anyone, of any discipline who expresses an interest to fund research becomes a 'FRINGER' (if there is such a word), and anyone mentioning these same unauthorised, out of time, not fitting in, artifacts...is relegated to the FRINGE...from here, it is a simple procedure to insert the word 'lunatic' before it...


These are my meanings for these words

Fringe is material that has no basis in reality, or are implausible interpretations of existing evidence, also called pseudo-archaeology

Alternative views are an interpretation of evidence not presently accepted by orthodox concensus

Fantasy are conclusions reached without the need of evidence or in contrast to evidence



The, now defunct, library at Alexandria, was said to contain tomes of written material...burned and destroyed...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and since the event/s of Alexandria (for one!) are well documented, the evidence once therein contained is absent...what was contained within it?...maps?



You seem to have forgotten that the Library (and others) existed for centuries and were used extensively by many scholars who researched and wrote about what they read. Some of what they wrote has survived, no mentions of anything too strange.........you have also forgotten that the Indians and Chinese also kept records

You might find it interesting to look at the surviving structure of the library (how it was organized) and how they organized the scrolls



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by akushla99

Franco Rosselli map
Orontius Fineus map
Zeno Brothers map
The Orions belt/pyramid complex 'map'
The Inca geoglyphs in the Nazca Desert, Peru
Aerial maps produced by Leonardo Da Vinci
Palaeolithic 'maps' of the night sky at Lascaux
The Nebra 'sky-disc'

I'm not sure how any of these are meant to be evidence of a civilisation that had "hot air balloons and telescopes" that could make "aerial maps"??

The Zeno Brothers is a well known hoax that depicts fictitious islands and is accompanied by a very tall tale.

The Nebra Sky Disk is a disc depicting the night sky, not a map. The only knowledge required would be gained from simply looking upwards at night. I think most cultures are aware of the moon.

The same applies to the Lasceux cave paintings - again, not a map.

The only one that could be argued (in my opinion wrongly) to require an aerial view is the Nazca lines, and they are not a map.

Why do you believe the maps you have listed would require an aerial view to construct?


The word mapping, while in the strictest sense, has been used to describe topographical features...any form of mapping can be made to be called 'mapping'...mind mapping, concept mapping, flow charts...

Representations of the features we view over our heads are sometimes referred to as star maps...i would venture a guess that, under another name, some of these 'charts' are used in the data necessary to navigate manned and unmanned craft from earth to...wherever...so yes, maps...

...essentially the two-dimensional representation of an idea or feature, whether real or imaginary...
The Nazca glyphs, are what?...since you seem to know what they are not...

While you have studiously ticked off what could not be a 'map'...convenient ommissions within the examples I gave you exist...

Akushla



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
any form of mapping can be made to be called 'mapping'

Well, I can't argue with that. But I'm not sure where it gets us.



Representations of the features we view over our heads are sometimes referred to as star maps...i would venture a guess that, under another name, some of these 'charts' are used in the data necessary to navigate manned and unmanned craft from earth to...wherever...so yes, maps...

Are you suggesting that civilisations with technology capable of travelling the vast distances of intergalactic space are navigating using cave paintings? Or perhaps they are using the Nebra Sky Disk?



How is this a map? How does it indicate any knowledge we wouldn't expect from a Bronze Age culture?



...essentially the two-dimensional representation of an idea or feature, whether real or imaginary...
The Nazca glyphs, are what?..

If you claim they are a map - what do you think they represent?



While you have studiously ticked off what could not be a 'map'...convenient ommissions within the examples I gave you exist...

I'm not suggesting that some of the maps you listed are not maps, The Franco Rosselli map is definitely a map. The debate in this thread is whether it would require an aerial view - you listed these as examples of maps that would require an aerial view. I'm not sure why.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 
.

(Sigh) If you would read the book, you'd know. I REALLY hate taking a post apart sentence by sentence to add some snarky comment, usually a pedantic quibble on the definition of a single word, in an attempt to "argue" against a large idea. The arguments get circular very quickly and the major meaning is lost. And no one will read it. Make your case or don't, but don't expect anybody to reply to reply to reply.

The major idea here is not really telescopes and balloons. The basic idea is that there were civilizations that were largely wiped out by a sudden rise in the sea level approximately 12,000BCE. That is the hypothesis. Now, what evidence can be brought to bear on this idea? Further, must we limit our evidence to what academics will consider? My answer to this second question is "No." Why? Because academics are not known for their forward thinking. They are extremely conservative. We have hundreds of examples of academia spurning new ideas, driving their promoters to ruin (plate tectonics is a good example), then ultimately saying it was their own idea. I don't really care what academics think about Hancock.

Now, what kinds of evidence do we have that there were civilizations 12,000 years BC? First, we have very murky historical references. These include a near-Universal "flood story" that shows up in mythology and folklore worldwide, from the Bible to the Bahavagad Gita. from Northwest Coast Indian stories to Japanese chronicles. There have been many attempts to explain away this. Academia will tell you that the first cities and civilizations were based near rivers, which flooded every year, therefore this is the origin of the universal flood story. They did get something right here. Early civilizations were near water, near the sea.

Secondly, we have physical evidence. Underwater structures have been found off the coast of Japan and India. This is not conjecture; we have pictures. It's a very hostile environment, dangerous and difficult to dive. But still, the evidence is there. Here's a brand new one.

Third, we have the mechanism at the right time, a broken ice dam at the end of the last Ice Age allowing enough water to be released to raise the sea level worldwide by 60 feet very quickly. We know that sort of thing has happened in the past. This is the main academic theory explaining the topography of eastern Washington State. And yes, there is planty of water to do that.

So, we have our collective memory, physical evidence, and the mechanism all pointing to the same time frame abouut 12,000 BC. The scientific evidence that we DO have, including temperature and climate, corroborates the entire thing. Does that mean it REALLY happened? Of course not. We don't know for sure, and unless we put a lot more effort into it, we won't ever know.

This is a hypothesis. It has not been disproven. One wonders why some people feel so compelled to try.
edit on 12/12/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 





The basic idea is that there were civilizations that were largely wiped out by a sudden rise in the sea level approximately 12,000 years ago. That is the hypothesis. Now, what evidence can be brought to bear on this idea? Further, must we limit our evidence to what academics will consider? My answer to this second question is "No." Why? Because academics are not known for their forward thinking.


Really not a forwarded thinker amongst them; shall I list the thousands of inventions, theories and concept produced in the last one hundred years say by these, ‘extremely conservative’ – Edison, Curie, Pasteur, Volta, Einstein and Hawking - they aren’t forward thinking enough for you? Or do you mean they didn’t embrace stuff that which wasn’t evidenced? Please explain to us how Einstein wasn't 'forward thinking and extremely conservative'?



We have hundreds of examples of academia spurning new ideas, driving their promoters to ruin (plate tectonics is a good example), then ultimately saying iot was their own idea.


Until there was evidence that supported the idea of course people didn't accept it. Science is evidence based. Just because a theory sounds good doesn’t mean it might be real. People went out and found the evidence needed.



I don't really care what academics think about Hancock.


So you reject evidence and the scientific method – well that does make it a whole lot easier to believe what he says, I could reverse it on you, I don't care what you think about academics, lol



Now, what kinds of evidence do we have that there were civilizations 12,000 years BC? First, we have very murky historical references. These include a near-Universal "flood story" that shows up in mythology and folklore worldwide, from the Bible to the Bahavaga Dida. from Northwest Coast Indian stories to Japanese chronicles


‘Near’ is the key word and they were regional and area floods – often caused by rain and river, few were sea based



There have been many attempts to explain away this. Academia will tell you that the first cities and civilizations were based near rivers, which flooded every year, therefore this is the origin of the universal flood story. They did get something right here. Early civilizations were near water, near the sea.


Now you have made the claim can you provide evidence for it? However think for a second - what evidence do you actually have for that claim...other than what Hancock told you to believe?




Secondly, we have physical evidence. Underwater structures have been found off the coast of Japan and India.


Yanaguni isn’t a city, you might want to review the archaeological record of the island it is located next to. Plus it was flooded thousands of years after your trigger date. I’m not sure which India location you are referring to, as there are some legit ones and some that aren’t. If it’s the Cambay one that is isn’t real and if it is one of the real ones they are much later than your trigger date. Yes historically cities have flooded but no entire civilizations.



Third, we have the mechanism at he right time, a broken ice dam at the end of the last Ice Age allowing enough water to be released to raise the sea level worldwide by 60 feet very quickly.


I provided evidence that no such rapid rise accured and by the way it was 60 meters. How do you explain away the evidence?



So, we have our collective memory, physical evidence, and the mechanism all pointing to the same time frame abouut 12,000 BC.


You have no physical evidence, misinterpreted myth and no mechanism. I would recommend you read my previous replies and look at the links



The scientific evidence that we DO have, including temperature and climate, corroborates the entire thing.


No it doesn’t, unless you have found a way to vastly speed up the rise of the sea; and studies to show how this was done. The evidence shows you theory is wrong.

Here is the link again to my post which has a link to the Meltwater pulse 1a

Previous post



Does that mean it REALLY happened? Of course not. We don't know for sure, and unless we put a lot more effort into it, we won't ever know. This is a hypothesis. It has not been disproven. One wonders why some people feel so compelled to try.


The hypothesis is unproven; it is the claimer job to prove the hypothesis, existing evidence presently shows the idea to be flawed to the point of implausibility. We may find a lost culture but it won't be in the Antarctic and it probably won't be on a former sea coast - but we will let the evidence change our minds

because: Added link to previous post

edit on 12/12/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


You're still doing it. Can't help yourself? What's your deal here? What's your agenda? Why do you bite so hard? Why do you make it personal? Can't you make your case by using standard paragraphs in narrative form? Why do you insist in this "quote, reply, quote, reply" technique? Do you find it necessary to be always right? Do you really think you are that superior? Hint: Nobody cares about your comments on individual sentences.

And for that matter, what are your qualifications? This is ATS, not the hallowed pages of a peer reviewed archaeological journal (that nobody reads.) This is where we engage in some speculation, in some stretching of the mind to encompass more than what the dusty halls of academia allow. We both share an interest in anthropology and archaeology. That much is evident. I have a degree in the subject; I imagine you might, too. I've been through the orthodox approach and I've witnessed the "enthusiast" approach. I find myself in the middle.

I had an old archaeology professor once who was, of course, orthodox, though not much accomplished. He hadn't done much, hadn't made a name for himself, while the department across the state in the land grant university ran circles around him. Nevertheless, he taught us how to survey a site, how to use a transit, how to set up a grid, how to record what we found. His name was Greengo, I imagine long dead.

And I had this cousin named Duane, older than me. He was fond of pot hole digging and exploring the caves in the badlands of the Dakotas. Under his house were boxes and boxes of rocks. His arrowheads were displayed in glass shielded frames in fancy patterns. Duane visited our site and you can imagine the conversation. On the one hand Greengo insisted people like Duane wrecked a site, which is, of course, very true. Duane, on the other hand, insisted he knew exactly where his artifacts came from, which, of course, is of no practical value whatsoever. He accused Greengo of being stuck in his grids to the point where he never got anything done. This is also true. 90% of all archaeology goes unpublished. It is effectively as hidden as Duane's rocks in boxes and will never see the light of day. Duane, too, is long dead; heart attack mowing the lawn.

So Duane says to me, "This site looks like you might find some choppers." "Looks like"???? I told him he was nuts. I'd read the field notes on the site as a class requirement. Nowhere were found any choppers. I'm in my square hole at the time scraping away a brutal clay layer as my trowel hit a rock. I scraped my way around it as he watched and I pulled it out. A few pieces on the end had been broken off. It was about the most perfect chopper you've ever seen in your life. It was made out of granite, not flint.

I'm perfectly willing to throw out people like Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin in searching for the past. I'm also willing to throw out Cremo. He looks academic, but his references are mostly to old newspaper articles, many of which cannot be traced. Besides, if you know about him you know he has an agenda.

But people like Hancock and Coppens have actually been to these sites and examined them. They are not acting in the role of an orthodox armchair anthropologist who has never done a lick of field work in his life and derives pleasure from criticizing others. They have an idea that just maybe we can put together and deduce what happened about 12,000 BCE. I have already presented the hypothesis. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis stated in positive terms. It passes scientific muster, period. If you maintain it does not, then I maintain you don't know what you are talking about. You learn to do that in graduate school. Perhaps, if you were there, you learned it, too.

Please allow us to examine this hypothesis and explore the issues.

We do not require your approval. You are acting like a nasty little man running around knocking the genitilia off Roman statues because they offend you. And that says a lot more about you than it does about us.
edit on 12/14/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Hanslune
 


You're still doing it. Can't help yourself? What's your deal here? What's your agenda? Why do you bite so hard? Why do you make it personal? Can't you make your case by using standard paragraphs in narrative form? Why do you insist in this "quote, reply, quote, reply" technique? Do you find it necessary to be always right? Do you really think you are that superior? Hint: Nobody cares about your comments on individual sentences.

Correction. I do.


Originally posted by schuyler
And for that matter, what are your qualifications? This is ATS, not the hallowed pages of a peer reviewed archaeological journal (that nobody reads.) This is where we engage in some speculation, in some stretching of the mind to encompass more than what the dusty halls of academia allow.


The above may well be so, but I submit that the following quotes do not reflect any sort of "speculation" in the way they are phrased:


The basic idea is that there were civilizations that were largely wiped out by a sudden rise in the sea level approximately 12,000 years ago. That is the hypothesis. Now, what evidence can be brought to bear on this idea? Further, must we limit our evidence to what academics will consider? My answer to this second question is "No." Why? Because academics are not known for their forward thinking.




We have hundreds of examples of academia spurning new ideas, driving their promoters to ruin (plate tectonics is a good example), then ultimately saying iot was their own idea.




There have been many attempts to explain away this. Academia will tell you that the first cities and civilizations were based near rivers, which flooded every year, therefore this is the origin of the universal flood story. They did get something right here. Early civilizations were near water, near the sea.




Secondly, we have physical evidence. Underwater structures have been found off the coast of Japan and India.




Third, we have the mechanism at he right time, a broken ice dam at the end of the last Ice Age allowing enough water to be released to raise the sea level worldwide by 60 feet very quickly.




So, we have our collective memory, physical evidence, and the mechanism all pointing to the same time frame abouut 12,000 BC.


If you want to speculate, do so. However, if you simply make ridiculous claims, and then refuse to even consider evidence to the contrary that has been provided to you to help you see how ridiculous your claim is, and then back slowly away claiming "Here we speculate" or whatever, you can expect to be corrected by those of us that know better.

By the way, you don't have to thank us for it, but you certainly ought to.

Harte
edit on 12/14/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Hanslune
 


You're still doing it. Can't help yourself? What's your deal here? What's your agenda? Why do you bite so hard? Why do you make it personal? Can't you make your case by using standard paragraphs in narrative form? Why do you insist in this "quote, reply, quote, reply" technique? Do you find it necessary to be always right? Do you really think you are that superior? Hint: Nobody cares about your comments on individual sentences.


Because I find this way more efficient and your way less so


And for that matter, what are your qualifications? This is ATS, not the hallowed pages of a peer reviewed archaeological journal (that nobody reads.)



I do - you should too, it gives one a base from which to speculate from


But people like Hancock and Coppens have actually been to these sites and examined them. They are not acting in the role of an orthodox armchair anthropologist who has never done a lick of field work in his life and derives pleasure from criticizing others.


Archaeologists on average do a far greater amount of field work than the average fringe writer. I have done my share of field work, and still do.



They have an idea that just maybe we can put together and deduce what happened about 12,000 BCE. I have already presented the hypothesis. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis stated in positive terms. It passes scientific muster, period. If you maintain it does not, then I maintain you don't know what you are talking about. You learn to do that in graduate school. Perhaps, if you were there, you learned it, too.


No it doesn't and that has been explained to you several times. If you like we can go over the evidence again, line by line, very slowly so that you can understand it


We do not require your approval.


Nor are we required to accept your denial of evidence



You are acting like a nasty little man running around knocking the genitilia off Roman statues because they offend you. And that says a lot more about you than it does about us.


Not really I rather like Roman statues and exotic Cretan urns....(what is an exotic Cretan urn? About a half dachma a week.....) what I have been doing is showing that you don't read contra-evidence, don't understand the subject beyond believing what you have been told to believe by Hancock.

Here is a question one for you to answer:

What was the rate of sea rise from 20,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE? By rate I mean in centimeters per year?

Here is a second question for you to answer:

What is the average height above sea level that people build habitations?

Here is a third question for you to answer:

How many cultures equivalent to say Sumer, AE, Han and Harappan build only on the seacoast and don't built centers farther inland?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 

Hi GLontra,

The first manned hot air balloon was supposedly built and flown by the Montgolfier brothers in 1783 AD. This was not, however, the first use of the hot air balloon. The Chinese military used them around 220 AD but these were unmanned balloons used for signalling purposes.

The hot air balloon designed by the Montgolfier brothers was made from linen and paper. (source). Interestingly, linen was a widely used material in ancient Egypt and papyrus (an early form of paper made from the pith of the Cyperus papyrus plant) was also widely used in ancient Egypt and other Mediterranean cultures.


The earliest records of an established linen industry are 4,000 years old, from Egypt. - source.

Papyrus is a thick, paper-like material produced from the pith of the Cyperus papyrus plant which was used in ancient Egypt and other Mediterranean cultures for writing before the introduction of paper into the Middle East and Europe. - source.


So, it seems that the ancient Egyptians at least had available to them the materials from which to make a viable hot air balloon. The question is whether or not they did so?

In the Temple of Hathor at Dendera, we find these images:



The snakes enclosed in the 'balloon' shapes in the images above could symbolise the AE goddess Amaunet - the Goddess of Air. This goddess may also be depicted sitting atop the stone block on the far right of the upper image although this could also be the god (Heh - also an air god identified with Shu).

Notice how the balloon shape in the upper image lies on its side (horizontal) and is similar to a modern hot air balloon being laid out and filled with hot air. Notice also how the other image from Dendera depict the balloon shapes in a vertical alignment (again with the snakes of the air goddess within the balloon shape) as though the balloons are now upright and flying.

Intriguingly, in the texts that are alongside these images in the Temple of Hathor at Dendera there are references to the "sky carriers". We have to ask what exactly is meant by a "sky carrier"? The god Heh holding up the four pillards of the sky or Is it perhaps a reference to something that actually carries something/someone into the sky in the same way we might say "air-plane"?

Incidentally, the orthodox interpretation of this scene at Dendera typically invokes a religious ceremony of Horus being born from a lotus flower. Indeed. (orthodox tend to resort to religious symbolism whenever they really haven't a clue what it is they are looking at).

Is this evidence of a hot air balloon in ancient times? I have no idea. But one thing I really DO KNOW - it ain't no lightbulb!

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton


PS - Incidentally, calculations show that just one of these ancient balloons with a diameter of 100 feet could easily lift two average limestone blocks of 2.5 ton each used to build the Giza pyramids.

edit on 15/12/2011 by Scott Creighton because: Fix Typo.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join