Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure

page: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


You forgot to tell me if you accepted the C-14 date studies and which of the chronologies you prefer? It would make it easier to discuss this if I know where you are coming from.

Thanks




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


hanslune,

the minute a person writes anything that's outside the mainstream, it goes thru 2 critical phases:

1) is this person capable of knowing this (do they have evidence in the form of a degree in the field)
2) is this person an acceptable candidate for crediting him or her with the discovery, or should we ignore it and have one of our own suddenly discover it instead.

that is the way of the world and if you don't think so, explain how obama got the nobel peace prize.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by undo


You forgot to tell me if you accepted the C-14 date studies and which of the chronologies you prefer? It would make it easier to discuss this if I know where you are coming from.

Thanks


i have no problem accepting c-14 dates but i don't assume that because something is there that dates to that age, means the whole thing is that age. note that if seti I signed his name to an older monument that he added onto, and today, it's considered his construction even though it predates him, that this same thing is probably true of the great pyramid as well. in other words, khufu probably didn't build it, just refurbished or added to it in some way. possibly even removed something from it, something big that took a work team.

too many assumptions being passed off as facts, which results in counter assumptions being passed off as facts, to the point of the entire idea of something different than accepted data on it, is ridiculed as fringe hogwash. then people who even hypothesize about data they collected, are called idiots.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

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!



well if you'll notice a post i made after that gave both links. then you went and posted the same link. it's like duh. you're smarter than that. knock it off.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



I also beleive that socitey was far more advanced than what they get credit for. Maybe they were and all the proof has bio degraded have any of you seen life after people? how almost everything is gone after so many thousands of years and the earth starts taking over agian and cliaming nature. It makes me wonder what all has been lost the stones remain because, they do not desinagrate. How I wish I could travel back in time and see all the wonders of the world that happends back in ancenit times. also How do they really know how old these stones were? Stones can not be carbon dated.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
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)


Where did you get the information for your "e-book"? Did you just make it up? Or did you get it from videos like this?

I have no comment to make about your e-books, as I have not read them. But if your implication is that this video is a good source for "alternative information", then you are clearly misleading yourself.

Many of the "facts" presented in that video series are demonstrably false. They don't just contradict mainstream textbooks. They contradict known and checkable facts. I gave some examples. Anyone who chooses to ignore all the knowledge we have so that they can entertain their own hagiographies is deceiving themselves.
edit on 8-2-2012 by XtraTL because: Fixed up the prose
edit on 8-2-2012 by XtraTL because: typo



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


nah, i don't necessarily agree with the findings on gobekli. i've even mentioned earlier, that i don't think the dates of somethings prove the dates of other things, just because they are in the same area. i mean it's a good guess, but is it a fact? i don't think so. so why treat this stuff like it's factual? sounds wrong to me. that's where dating is suspicious to me. if someone else finds contrary evidence and presents it, no matter how much evidence is presented, it will be considered hogwash unless the person who discovered it has enough clout. .

my evidence for my ebooks is mostly ancient texts and artifacts, with some science tossed in to support it. when the mainstream does that, it's called backed by science. when anyone outside the mainstream does that, it's called pseudo-science even if the science is rock solid, and further propped up by archaeology and ancient history. it's got to the point where you can prove a theory is feasible using science and have it still be called hogwash because some big wig either didn't discover it first or think of it first or because it might suggest yet one more thing in ancient texts is legit (like ancient troy was a fairy tale according to enlightenment scholars but turns out it wasn't and that it actually existed, just to give you an idea).

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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


Very well said. I dont think people give the ancients as much credit as they deserve. I mean really, a theory that says aliens came to earth to show us how to build is nonsense. Admitting that the ancients were more advanced than we realize isnt.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by flexy123
 


You just took a number (12.000) for granted just because a guy said so and ask me if I'm being funny???
Who is the neighbor? Greece. An ancient nation who ruled the world, conquered almost everything, inventer of mathematics, physics, democracy and even had a pharao in Egypt! The ones that gave you the ability to even write this post and ONE guy in a video says they found some stables that are 12.000 years old and you take that for a fact.

Now who's the one being funny?


Sorry...what's your reasoning to doubt numbers given if there is no reason to do so?
Do you think there are no technical methods these days to establish age of structures etc?
There are plenty...and up to this day i didn't come along any doubt...let alone REASON to doubt why the 12.000 number should be wrong.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Never mind,

i just saw you gave Kudos to the guy who states he believes "we are only here for around 6000 years".
Makes it clear that you are not able to follow this debate, at least not rationally...and makes it also clear WHY you are needlessly countering and talking against my (and others) replies here.

It's sad if an interesting topic like Göbleki Tepe gets "emotional" and it becomes more and more impossible to stay within arguments or CONSTRUCTIVE debate - because "it is against someone religion"...lol..

As for my part...just as a side-note..even Ancient Astronaut Theory is rational in comparison to the idea man is only around 6000 years, let alone the claim (as seen before) the pyramids are "10.000 years old"...or "the old greeks are 10.000 years old".

Who told you guys that or are you making stuff up as you go just to keep the discussion here on a unconstructive, emotional level?
edit on 8-2-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


en.wikipedia.org...

You may wanna check your facts... Your WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY off. That enough ways to get my point across. Can we just label this guy a troll and ignore him?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Hellas
 


en.wikipedia.org...

You may wanna check your facts... Your WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY off. That enough ways to get my point across. Can we just label this guy a troll and ignore him?


I am telling you you cant have a good, intelligent debate here anymore and it's sad..seriously



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by XtraTL
 

my evidence for my ebooks is mostly ancient texts and artifacts, with some science tossed in to support it. when the mainstream does that, it's called backed by science. when anyone outside the mainstream does that, it's called pseudo-science even if the science is rock solid, and further propped up by archaeology and ancient history.
edit on 8-2-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)


It's usually called pseudo-science because of great leaps of logic which are not supported by evidence. Simply using actual facts as a "basis" for claims does not make the claims scientific.

For a claim to be scientific it must be a parsimonious explanation and be based on a hypothesis which can be tested and which survives scrutiny. It is often the case that when members of the public try to do this they do not understand the rules of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Anyone claiming that ancient astronauts and not ancient humans were responsible for what we see archaelogists digging up had better have some pretty extensive evidence.

We'd expect to find remains of alien technology, written accounts of what these aliens looked like, what they did and other kinds of objective evidence.

Take one of the claims from the video series as an example. When discussing the Carnac Stones they talk about energy travelling along the line of stones. Instead of presenting evidence for this, such as measurements with a volt meter, an explanation or mechanism, evidence that the ancients intended that effect, etc., they simply say that many tourists "feel" something. This is pseudoscience because it is not based on any objective, quantitative information, but on subjective, qualitative information. Moreover, no mechanism obeying the known laws of physics is presented. Instead the best they can do is mumble about the rocks being magnetized by the earth (this is probably true) and that therefore putting the rocks in a line creates some kind of electrical effect. This is hopelessly wrong as any first year physics student, or indeed any geophysicist will tell you. It isn't even possibly right. It is known to be wrong, as it contradicts known facts.

Furthermore, the notion that this infinitesimal magnetic effect could be responsible for the massive electrical effect postulated is a problem of scale. This is typical of pseudoscience. Some effect which measures in the microscale is supposed to cause some effect in the macroscale. Numbers and orders of magnitude mean nothing to the general public, so these charlatans feel they can drive a truck through the gaps in the general knowledge of the unwitting public. To a scientist however, these claims are as nonsensical as saying that you erased some pencil drawings in your notebook and the resulting shock waves caused the neighbours brick house to collapse. Ridiculous claims like this do not deserve a response because they are too ridiculous to even countenance.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


i think the real argument is not whether the area has things that are dated to 12000 BC but rather, whether the dates of somethings prove the dates of all things. for example, how do we know the art work is not newer than the original blocks? maybe the T shaped stones are actually 30000 BC but the artwork is 4000 BC or 24000 BC. we don't know. it's all speculation based on a few dates some of which may only be at best a guess. i don't know why they are relying so heavily on the dating, if nothing else is in agreement with the date, and by that i mean, do we have any evidence other than gobekli, of that type of tooling in that time frame? if not, maybe it's quite a bit older or quite a bit younger, etc.

i don't mind seeing theories but when people start calling each other idiots over what is yet to be conclusively proven one way or another, bugs me.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
reply to post by XtraTL
 


extraordinary evidence just gets pushed farther and farther away. you'll almost have it, think you've covered it more than most modern theories about similar info in that same time frame, and then someone will pull that over-used excuse not to actually consider your theories. it's okay, we all know it happens. most of us are consigned to being forever stuck in salieri's shoes (not that we aren't deserving of mozart's, just that we are consigned to mediocrity.....on purpose).



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


Yeah he's saying 30th century like he doesn't realize thats 3000 BC, I really think he thinks it means 30000 BC... Clearly I would suggest he keeps a dictionary handy at all times and furthers his education since he doesn't realize that these would date back to 10,000 BC and some modest estimates put it further back to 12,000 BC. Putting us into the Upper Paleolithic ERA, but hey I suppose not everyone had history class or knows how to utilize google.

He thinks by infection, catching an opinion like a cold.-John Ruskin

He keeps it up I'll just ignore his posts, no big.

edit on 8-2-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
XtraTL,

here's an example:



hey I suppose not everyone had history class or knows how to utilize google.


"not everyone" had history class. now he may have a legit gripe there, i'm not arguing that, but you'd be shocked to see how many times good theories or interesting hypotheses are tossed out of the arena of discussion on the mere suggestion that it stems from the mediocrity of the masses, else they'd be in complete lock step with established history and science.



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



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


my question then to you is: if we didn't know this type of tooling was around back then, how do we know it wasn't around in 30000 BC or even earlier? why do people insist on making facts out of small bits of data and then call people who do the same thing but in a different way, wrong? how do you know they are any less wrong or right than the guy who told you it was 1BC or the guy who told you it was 100,000 BC?
where's the common sense and logic in this approach to science?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 




Do you think there are no technical methods these days to establish age of structures etc?


No there are no technical methods that go beyond documented cases. That is a fact. Everything else is just guessing. I think we can agree that those estimations are just that. Estimations

reply to post by NoJoker13
 





en.wikipedia.org...

You may wanna check your facts... Your WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY off. That enough ways to get my point across. Can we just label this guy a troll and ignore him?


They say don't feed the troll, but you're hurting even yourself. Posting a wikipedia link to make your point. That's laughable at least. No history knowledge whatsoever but trying to fit in here, huh? Tell me what Do you actually know about the Topic? Can you even discard one single comma in my posts here, with your knowledge?

Enlighten us on ancient buildings, temples. Why there were build, how they were build. Maybe your new friend wikipedia will help you even with some sacred geometry. But I wouldn't want to give you a migrane.

I'm not trying to attack you here, but just posting something because you think it is funny doesn't really help here. Not knowing something isn't bad. But you sure wont learn anything by dragging this into the mud.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This excavation is quite interesting. Architecturally diverse and lacks proper description of purpose. As someone stated earlier, the girth of the columns denote load-bearing capabilities. As for the intent of the design, answers will present themselves rapidly, once the newer areas are cleared/earth removed. (my opinion)

With all the technologies present today, why is it unfathomable to grasp a less sophisticated society building/creating something as unique as these ruins? Perhaps, the site was abandoned for reasons yet to be explained.

Here's another twist. There is a man that built a garden of stone in Florida. Can anyone explain how he was able to do what he did, and, why he didn't share his talent?
Here's the site.

coralcastle.com...
edit on 8-2-2012 by Pteraductile because: spell check didn't check






top topics



 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join