Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure

page: 5
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Who were these guys? lol Troy was found by Calvert, an archaeologist.


That would be Schliemann




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


this information was removed from wikipedia. it's still available in other places, but wiki's entry vanished.


No, you are wrong. It's still there just go back to the 'older than 500' for revisions

Example

August 2004 sample of that wiki page
edit on 8/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Who were these guys? lol Troy was found by Calvert, an archaeologist.


That would be Schliemann


Schliemann dug it up with Calvert help. When Schliemann showed up at the Troad, Calvert was already there

Frank Calvert





Before the discovery of Troy, Heinrich Schliemann did not know where to look for the Trojan city, and he was about to give up his exploration for Troy all together. It wasn’t until Frank Calvert suggested excavating The Mound of Hasarlik, that Schliemann made any moves to dig at the site [5]. Calvert had already searched in the mound, but he never made it down to the Bronze Age layers, however he was determined Troy was buried somewhere within the mound [6].

Located in Turkey, The Mound of Hasarlik was owned by Calvert and the other half was owned by the Turkish government. Since half of the mound was partially owned by Calvert, Schliemann knew he had a lot of knowledge surrounding the area. Therefore, trusting Calvert’s judgment, Schliemann began the excavation and the discovery of Troy in 1873. Now, most Schliemann scholars claim that if it was not for Frank Calvert, Schliemann’s discovery and rise to fame would never have been possible. The excavation lasted from 1873 to 1890
edit on 8/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by undo


this information was removed from wikipedia. it's still available in other places, but wiki's entry vanished.


No, you are wrong. It's still there just go back to the 'older than 500' for revisions

Example

August 2004 sample of that wiki page
edit on 8/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


no i'm not wrong. it was removed. it no longer exists on the current entry, that means it was removed so that people who search it, get a current wiki reference to it, in which the older version no longer exists. don't try that bs with me. i'm not a kid.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Okay, that makes sense.
I'd never heard that before. In either case, though, it's obvious that Emmerich and Devlin are familiar with the material.


well yeah, they had to be, they made the movie! how could you make a movie and not be familar with it.


Very easily, actually. Stuff like that happens all the time, especially in a collaboration. That's why they have "consultants."


it was based on the original screenplay written by two egyptologists who put their theories in it. it could be the wording is off a bit, and that only 1 egyptologist wrote it and the older egyptologist vouched for him because he had read papers written by the younger one, in which the younger one described his theories, but either way, the original inspiration for the stargate movie screenplay was based on the THEORIES of at least 1 egyptologist from john hopkins university and possibly 2. that information was removed from wikipedia as my prior post shows (i added links to the evidence)
edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


Okay, okay, don't get your knickers in a twist.
edit on 2/8/2012 by HappyBunny because: Fix quote tags



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by undo
you gotta watch these guys with both eyes and your glasses on. for example, he claims gobekli tepe is several thousand years older than stonehenge or the great pyramid, but our dates for these locations were given by the same people who claimed ancient greeks couldn't write and ancient troy never existed. watch them carefully. research their claims.



Who were these guys? lol Troy was found by Calvert, an archaeologist. At that time (19th century) there was a debate as to where or if Troy existed. The Roman's thought it existed and that knowledge past with Latin into European thought. That part of Turkey was under Ottoman domination and excavation wasn't allowed until the mid 19th century. There was no consensus answer so your claim that archaeologists thought, 'ancient troy never existed; is false.

'Same people', Archaeologist aren't a race....lol


i'm referring to the references that came out of the enlightenment period, most of which were generated before the advent of archaeology. many of these references have been shown to be incorrect by later evidence, but we still see people quoting and clinging to references from the enlightenment when being enlightened required you ignore all of ancient history, and make up your own as you go along. such as the insistence that ancient greeks couldn't write, inspired by frederick wolfe's "homeric problem" and the complete mangling of the timeline based on ancient egypt's pharaohs, which they claimed only ruled 1 at a time, a notion found to be incorrect since then but no correction for the timeline is forth coming. that's what i mean about ancient egyptian history being embroiled in half truths to cover lies that cover lies that cover more lies, for somebody's political or religious (or non-religious) benefit.

edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The shape of the "T" type pillars is very interesting. When I first say them I immediately thought of the "T" shaped portal or door found at Aramu Muru.

Aramu Muru:


Pillar at Gobekli Tepe:


I know they are separated by thousands of years and located on a completely different continent but the similarity in shape is interesting nonetheless. The "T" shape seems to have religious significance in several diverse cultures.


edit on 2/8/2012 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
just ask yourself this:

why are there 2 crowns in egypt: 1 for lower egypt and 1 for upper egypt. what would be the point of making 2 crowns and then ALWAYS have them be on the head of one pharaoh? simplest and most obvious answer is, that sometimes, they had co-ruling pharaohs and sometimes they didn't. but egyptologists cling to the idea that the pharaohs ruled one at a time, which completely decimates the timeline. the timeline is important because all of ancient history is now judged by whether or not there is evidence on this screwed up timeline, for its existence.

fix the thing and then you can come here and make claims about the age of the pyramids.

edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This is one of the worst videos about ancient structures that I have ever seen. It makes me less intelligent watching it.

It's actually part of a series from the History Channel on the "ancient astronaut" theory.

So many completely incorrect statements are made in this video series that I don't even know where to start.

They make the claim that no implements for working the stone have been found at Göbekli Tepe, (a site dating to about 9,000-10,000BC). This is complete nonsense. The quarry is about 100m-500m from the site. It is known that the rocks were worked with Byblos and Nemrik tools made from flint. How is it known? Because these have been found at the site!

Later in the video series they discuss the Carnac Stones in France, dating from 3,300 - 4,500 BC. They babble on about "advanced mathematics" and cite knowledge of the "Pythagorean Theorem". This theorem has probably been known in some form for 4,000 years or so. But they provide absolutely zero evidence in the video. They vaguely mention a right angle triangle in the rocks.

This doesn't mean they knew the Pythagorean triangle. Right angle triangles have been known for a lot longer than the Pythagorean Theorem. *Every* right angled triangle obeys the Pythagorean Theorem and is not evidence of knowledge of the Theorem. The only way they could even demonstrate knowledge of it is by writing down the algebraic relation a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in relation to a triangle.

The other way they could demonstrate knowledge of the mathematics of a right triangle is to construct Pythagorean triples. These are triples of whole numbers that satisfy the Pythagorean relation, e.g. 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, or 5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2.

Either way, even if there is evidence at the site that they knew the Pythagorean Theorem, or constructed Pythagorean Triples (there is not), can you imagine advanced alien species travelling across the galaxy to teach us such trivialities! This is not advanced mathematics, it is ancient mathematics.

As I have said before, if people actually understood what the ancients actually did know and the significance of it, they wouldn't be making such stupid arguments. This entire video series amounts to no more than pretty pictures + naked assertion that scientists do not know who made blah = {insert crazy made up nonsense here}.

I am totally fed up with people being so deliberately ignorant, and making money out of it, as the people featured in that video are doing. They willfully ignore actual evidence so that in their ignorance they can prey on the uneducated, spouting complete nonsense, just so they can sell books.
edit on 8-2-2012 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2012 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2XOHsurf
I always wondered why if these civilizations are so advanced they can carve stones with such skill why are the carvings always so primitive looking? If you were going to carve an animal or a man wouldn't you sometimes make them more life-like and less cartoonish? Or maybe they were really into cartoons? Or maybe people and animals were not yet evolved and looked like Gumby and Pokey so the carvings are actually accurate representations? Dunno.


I am impressed by what ancient humans could do (their skills) and look at those ziggurats (came much later than the turkey temple). If not for the renaissance would not be that all impressed by "Us." Us moderners we have been dominated by tyrants for most of our history (today its corporations) and they are making plastic junk in the train box cars. Or eating hot dogs at ball games that isn't the same as a representation of a cartoon?
edit on 8-2-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by Hellas
Oh well..

First off all, the 12.000 years is just a very vague estimation and second this whole country belonged to the Hellenistic culture. So I don't see what's so strange here. They dug up the ancient greek stables..


The... "hellenistic culture" as you call it (or hellenistic period) only began with the death of alexander (in 300 or whatever bc)... so... the only thing I find really strange in here is your reply.

The "proto greeks" date around 2k bc... and the pre greeks from greece itself (or local indigenous ppl) date around 8k bc... (I dont have these many numbers in my head precisely so... I said "around" a lot - give or take 1 thousand years for everything I say lol) - we're not even talking about greece or greeks... this is Turkey... which means that, we could be talking about a lot of people but still not the greeks.

This is 12k... which means roughly 10k bc, so we're talking about neolithic here... so... again whats so common or usual about this that makes you answer in such a condescending way?

Must be something around the lines of "a pig fell from the sky... is pretty normal... since there are pigs, and theres a sky, so..."


Greek stables and where are the bones of the horses? That "stable" is a sociopath reponse to a fascinating discovery the archaeologist on the interview suggested that it might be a stone representation of the Noah's ark? So the bible stories are not just bed-time stories and there are freemasonic orders who know a lot of history that they don't want to share unless we are lucky enough to just know. Maybe the Bohemian Grove of its day where secret priesthood had gatherings and sacrificed a bunch of cows and plotted government policies.
edit on 8-2-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

no i'm not wrong. it was removed. it no longer exists on the current entry, that means it was removed so that people who search it, get a current wiki reference to it, in which the older version no longer exists. don't try that bs with me. i'm not a kid.


Sorry you seem confused. It was superceded by a new version. The old version still exist at that wiki page all you have to do is go to:

View History
Click on 'older than 500
and you will find the wiki page you are referring too

Are you saying it is not there?

I would suspect that the reason it was removed was because there was no cite to a primary source for the story. Wiki is not a primary source, its a summary. Information put into a wiki page that cannot be verified back to an original source, is removed.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


i did alot of research on ancient texts and wrote an ebook series on what i learned, very brief, 3 chapter ebooks. i was hoping to one day write a 3rd, more comprehensive one, but the entire idea that we already know everything that we should know and that there are no mistakes in what we do know, has lead to anything alternative from the mainstream being dubbed as hogwash. now i no longer care to write the 3rd book.

that kind of tunnel vision scares the crap out of me. have we come to the point where we no longer do inquiry for ourselves and do so wherever information is found and not just in accredited books? this is what i want to know.

edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


that i can understand and agree with the method. otherwise your argument is not worthy of your intellect. don't insult me, the readers or your own capacity to know the difference between "THERE NOW" and "NOT THERE NOW."

thanks.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
just ask yourself this:

why are there 2 crowns in egypt: 1 for lower egypt and 1 for upper egypt. what would be the point of making 2 crowns and then ALWAYS have them be on the head of one pharaoh? simplest and most obvious answer is, that sometimes, they had co-ruling pharaohs and sometimes they didn't. but egyptologists cling to the idea that the pharaohs ruled one at a time, which completely decimates the timeline. the timeline is important because all of ancient history is now judged by whether or not there is evidence on this screwed up timeline, for its existence.

fix the thing and then you can come here and make claims about the age of the pyramids.


I hate to tell you this but the dating of the pyramids can be done without the king lists. May I presume you don't accept the two C-14 dates? Or the dating of AE pottery?

The chronology except in the most basic terms is not fixed and is a matter of much dispute. However you seem to think it is fixed and there is only one "official story', lol

To make this easier which of the chronologies are you in favour of: Waddell, Rohl, James, Courville, Velikovsky, Breasted or Shaw?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Hanslune
 


that i can understand and agree with the method. otherwise your argument is not worthy of your intellect. don't insult me, the readers or your own capacity to know the difference between "THERE NOW" and "NOT THERE NOW."

thanks.


I'll take that funny rant to mean, yes Hans its right where you said it was. Not there and there now wasn't the question.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Hanslune
 


that i can understand and agree with the method. otherwise your argument is not worthy of your intellect. don't insult me, the readers or your own capacity to know the difference between "THERE NOW" and "NOT THERE NOW."

thanks.


I'll take that funny rant to mean, yes Hans its right where you said it was. Not there and there now wasn't the question.


please re-read my original and follow up posts. i said it's been removed. and it has. it's not there now. and i proved that it was there once and not there now by even linking to the original and the current. you are just arguing now to argue.

edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


the problem with pottery may be the same as trying to date the age of gobelki tepe's art, based on the age of or assumed age of, some other feature of gobekli. these two things may be separated in time by great margins.

for example, i can prove to you right now, that the osirieon was not built by seti I, which means it predated him and in the course of doing so, also prove that he added to it, and signed his name to the addition, and egyptologists are forced to accept that he built it because if they didn't, their timeline would be proven false again. and again. and again. and yawwwn again. toss book out. and again an...zzzz....



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


but the entire idea that we already know everything that we should know and that there are no mistakes in what we do know,


If you did the research you said you did then you know this statement isn't true. It's a strawman argument created long ago by the fringe. No creditable scientist would say or believe that....the real question is why would you believe that?


has lead to anything alternative from the mainstream being dubbed as hogwash. now i no longer care to write the 3rd book.


incorrect again, you keep repeating easy debunked fringe strawmen arguments as if they were real. I can name numerous alternative opinions:

Not all scientists agree that the identification of Troy is correct - that argument is not considered hogwash
Not all scientists agree that the first human came into the Americas around 20k by the Beringia - that argument is not considered hogwash
Not all scientists agree that Thera was the basis for the Plato story about Atlantis- that argument is not considered hogwash
etc

A lot of fringe is nonsense

Fringe that has evidence behind it is considered alternative......example for many decades people had the alternative idea that Neanderthals mated with HSS, they were correct and their former alternative view is now orthodox once evidence supporting that idea was found.



that kind of tunnel vision scares the crap out of me. have we come to the point where we no longer do inquiry for ourselves and do so wherever information is found and not just in accredited books? this is what i want to know.


Why? Is somebody stopping you?
edit on 8/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

please re-read my original and follow up posts. i said it's been removed. and it has. it's not there now. and i proved that it was there once and not there now by even linking to the original and the current. you are just arguing now to argue.


Correction you said



this information was removed from wikipedia. it's still available in other places, but wiki's entry vanished.


I was pointing out that it hadn't vanished and was exactly where it should be and you don't need to go to 'other places' to find it!





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join