Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Origins of Ancient Civilizations and Early Humans

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


To be honest, I think you're a troll. This conversation is over.




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchysAngel
 


Oh for pointing out your nonsense?

There is a troll involved in the discussion but it ain't me


LOL



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel

It would've done much better actually. Slayer is the status quo. ATS loves the status quo, and to complain about a lack of new threads. Self defeating isn't it?



ATS loves Status quo?

I believe that's a matter of perspective. Many here enjoy a mystery and exploring other off beat ideas while still others enjoy Status quo/accepted academia's view. In any case, from my experience here from both writing and reading is that any thread that is not strictly either status quo or alternative theory but based on facts and mixed with speculation or theory seem to be more popular than either a strictly Academic or solely based on ones own theories.

What I and a few other thread writers attempt to do is mix both. A Reinterpretation of the "Accepted Status quo" by taking what is generally perceived as fact and asking if that's the only way it could have come about?

Allow me to give an example. I'll use the Sphinx you've provided.



Status Quo:
In a nutshell: Egyptology states that the Sphinx was carved at or around the time of the building of the Great pyramid by Khufu aka {Keops/Cheops} setting the dates somewhere around 2570 +/- BC.

Posting ones opinion:
The Sphinx shows obvious water damage and much more weathering than can be allotted in the time frame set by Egyptology so therefore it's much older than they say!

Usually at that point the lines are drawn and the debate begins. Neither side considering the others stance of much value other than a point to discredit.

Alternative theorists on the other hand will look at both legitimate points and then come up with a third alternative encompassing both.

For example:



Accepting both arguments one could say that the Sphinx was originally carved from a single piece of living rock {FACT} originally in the shape of a Lion at a much much earlier date. Say ten thousand years BC {Speculation}. When Khufu built the great Pyramid {Accepted FACT} he had a work crew re-carve the head of the already existing Sphinx {Speculation} or around the time of the Refurbishing of the Great Pyramid {Speculation} at or around 2570 +/- BC. {Date Accepted FACT}

This is why there are no carved hieroglyphs {FACT} in the Interior of the Pyramid {Overall Speculation} and why the head of the Sphinx is much smaller than the body. {Fact mixed with Speculative conclusion}

Now what they have done is not questioned modern academia's over all view but have taken their arguments and used it to their advantage by acknowledging the accepted date of work done but have reinterpreted it.

Nothing wrong with using accepted Academia's/Status quo information to buttress ones theory.
edit on 5-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yeah Slayer don't deny it your 'status quo'! Just kidding

I've always noted that the head for the Sphinx was to small for the body

I would suspect that in neolithic times that a limestone outcrop was there and had a vaguely human or animal 'face'. The Ancient Egyptians adapted it and yeah I think some egotist had his head put on it.

One correction, there are glyphs inside the pyramids

Both the star shafts and the relieving chambers


Reliving chamber glyphs



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That's funny because I thought that's what I was doing. Anyone that's studied ancient architecture knows it's all stacked. I gave a theory as to why. Mu is about the age of the Sphinx, I accept that as truth. I thought it was a fair direct comparison.

I'll be back with yet another equally as outlandish thread. I will not ingest truth as it is handed to me by gold posters.

I will take good advice though.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
One correction, there are glyphs inside the pyramids

Both the star shafts and the relieving chambers


Reliving chamber glyphs


AND That my friends starts a great debate.

Were those originally painted when it was built {Carbon dated?} or painted during the possible "Refurbishing" of the already existing 10,000 BC year old Great Pyramid and Lion into Sphinx done by Khufu at or around 2570 +/- BC?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Originally posted by Hanslune
One correction, there are glyphs inside the pyramids

Both the star shafts and the relieving chambers


AND That my friends starts a great debate.

Were those originally painted when it was built {Carbon dated?} or painted during the possible "Refurbishing" of the already existing 10,000 BC year old Great Pyramid and Lion into Sphinx done by Khufu at or around 2570 +/- BC?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes posted on 4-8-2012 @ 02:38 PM
So my post about the sphinx being a celebration of the age of Leo has fallen on deaf ears!? This theory dates the Sphinx to10,000- 8,000 BC and no one has a single comment about it? I'm trying to use logic and insight here and the most of my insightful posts get no response. Yet my one liners get 20 stars. Wish I knew the shaking head smiley...


ETA: Gauranteed my exact theory will pop up in a high profile thread in the near future. I bet ya!

In fact, I bet it is one of the only 'predictions' to ever come true on ATS...


I anticipated your prediction on Stardate: 11-7-2011 @ 11:12 AM
Here is my argument why I think it's older.


Age of the Sphinx, A glaring issue about it's age!
edit on 5-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
The lost city of Mu'a/Mu/Mua/Yonaguni Monument

source

After some time away from the mainstream internet debunkers, the lost city of Mu'a is starting to gain some acceptance in the mainstream archeological world. The newest and popular theory is that early humans may have lived there and adapted the natural rock to their needs.



Efforts to date the monument are derived from the last time the area was above sea level, which would have been approximately 8,000-10,000 years ago– about 3-5 millennia before Egypt’s pyramids were erected. If the monuments were indeed built by humankind, it would require some dramatic revisions to the accepted chronological history of humanity.


Very glad to see a reasonable source actually linked and quoted.

However, your own source, National Geographic, said this on page one of your link:


Submerged stone structures lying just below the waters off Yonaguni Jima are actually the ruins of a Japanese Atlantis—an ancient city sunk by an earthquake about 2,000 years ago.

That's the belief of Masaaki Kimura, a marine geologist at the University of the Ryukyus in Japan who has been diving at the site to measure and map its formations for more than 15 years.

NatGeo source
Turns out that Kimura found some submerged caves that proved the site actually sank (and wasn't overcome by meltwater or anything) about 2,000 years ago. Your failure to post this fact, and to link only to page two, has not gone unnoticed, at least by me, and may indicate that you yourself, with full knowledge, just decided to post misinformation concerning this natural formation.

It should be noted that the site lies just offshore of the island of Yonaguni. This island exibits a geomorphology almost exactly like the submerged site, indicating that the shape(s) are certainly natural. IOW, similar rock formations are to be found on dry land on Yonaguni. Unfortunately for fringe believers, there exists no evidence of any really ancient culture (say, 10,000 years old) that lived on Yonaguni so, the people that the fringe believe "built" the "monument" never bothered to occupy the much larger island nearby?

Also, please present any evidence you can come up with that a place called "Mu, Mu A ' or Mua" is mentioned in any valid mythos of any culture, current or ancient, anywhere on Earth.


Originally posted by crawdad1914
Yes, how is it that Sumer, literally sprang up 6000 years ago as a fully functioning society advanced in many ways, but with zero evidence of progression to get to that state? Its like the messopotamians literally sparang up overnight.


In an example of how the future can truly affect the past, this "zero evidence of progression" and "springing up" is apparently only explainable by your obvious ignorance of the Ubaid and Samarra cultures that preceded that of Sumer.

Once you find out about them, the past will change to look more like a progression.

Harte



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 

Elsewhere it says he claims 5,000 years old. Make up your mind people!
edit on 5-8-2012 by AnarchysAngel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Harte
 

Elsewhere it says he claims 5,000 years old. Make up your mind people!

"Make up" our "mind"???

Learn to read.

Kimura speculates that the "evidence" (actually nonexistant) of human occupation might date that far back, not the submersion of this natural formation.

Harte



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I didn't log on here to read the same dry debates about Mu, the shoreline, the caves, and the crap. You can debate that dead horse with someone else if you like.

Not the point of the thread.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Harte
 


I didn't log on here to read the same dry debates about Mu, the shoreline, the caves, and the crap.

Words you typed with your own fingers in your own OP:


After some time away from the mainstream internet debunkers, the lost city of Mu'a is starting to gain some acceptance in the mainstream archeological world.


The shoreline, the caves and "the crap" all come directly from the link you yourself provided in your own OP.


Originally posted by AnarchysAngel You can debate that dead horse with someone else if you like.

Not the point of the thread.


Since all of the above came directly and verbatim from the OP of this thread, which you authored, your stating that I can "debate that dead horse with someone else" is nothing but an admission that everything you posted in the OP of the thread is bogus, and that you knew it was bogus before you posted it.

Refreshing to see a fringie admit posting misinformation and lies that can't stand the slightest scrutiny, and hence must be "debated with someone else" other than the one that has made the claims.

Harte



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


There's plenty of debate on both sides of the coin. That's not what the thread is about.

You say the shoreline formations are natural. I say stone doesn't errode at straight angles, nor does it crack in such straight lines, and it was clearly quarried.

You say the place sank. I say the oceans rose and the idea of geological activity causing a city to sink is silly.

You say the idea that the site is so old is silly. I say anything that young would have more than a fairytale associated with it.

You say an absence of artifacts found indicates it was never anything important. I say strong currents in the area will quickly remove anything that isn't tied down. The area's difficulty to dive is well documented.



This is not a diving site for beginners, with the ruins located in open waters with high waves and strong currents.

source

You would say those currents are what created Mu. I would say those currents would have created a very different structure, but have probably destroyed most of what was originally there.

Do we really have to do this? AGAIN?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sulie

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel

When our caretakers built them for us. Not to provide shelter or a place of burial, but to comfort our primative minds so we could grow.


Really? Well, I guess one is allowed to believe whatever they want to.

As to my take, it's an insult to humans to delegate us to 'having caretakers." Creative minds have been around for as long as there have been humans.

Suppose somebody with a creative mind saw a meteor shower and wanted to be closer to the heavens to understand what they were seeing? They saw an eclipse, or were awe struck with thunder and lightening from the heavens?

We are inquisitive about what surrounds us in our universe, and have sent many satellites, probes, and even men and women into the heavens.

I personally think you give creative minds no credit for what they could have accomplished without caretakers even thousands, and thousands of years ago.


I don't think the OP was attacking human innovation.

I think it simply highlights the fact that we, according to mainstream archeological record, have no on-site tool indicating they were used to create these immense ancient creations.

I don't think there's any point in getting mad, especially since you're just arguing your own opinion without fact backing it.

The fact of the matter is, it remains a mystery, and simply saying "humans are creative" does not solve the puzzle.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Harte
 


There's plenty of debate on both sides of the coin. That's not what the thread is about.

You say the shoreline formations are natural. I say stone doesn't errode at straight angles, nor does it crack in such straight lines, and it was clearly quarried.

You say the place sank. I say the oceans rose and the idea of geological activity causing a city to sink is silly.

You say the idea that the site is so old is silly. I say anything that young would have more than a fairytale associated with it.

You say an absence of artifacts found indicates it was never anything important. I say strong currents in the area will quickly remove anything that isn't tied down. The area's difficulty to dive is well documented.



This is not a diving site for beginners, with the ruins located in open waters with high waves and strong currents.

source

You would say those currents are what created Mu. I would say those currents would have created a very different structure, but have probably destroyed most of what was originally there.

Do we really have to do this? AGAIN?


In 4000 years, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people rejected the idea that Mt. Rushmore is a man-made structure.




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



hope this helps...
Mesopotamia

Between about 10,000 BC and the genesis of large permanent settlements, the following stages of development are distinguishable, some of which run parallel: (1) the change to sedentary life, or the transition from continual or seasonal change of abode, characteristic of hunter-gatherers and the earliest cattle breeders, to life in one place over a period of several years or even permanently, (2) the transition from experimental plant cultivation to the deliberate and calculated farming of grains and leguminous plants, (3) the erection of houses and the associated "settlement" of the gods in temples, (4) the burial of the dead in cemeteries, (5) the invention of clay vessels, made at first by hand, then turned on the wheel and fired to ever greater degrees of hardness, at the same time receiving almost invariably decoration of incised designs or painted patterns, (6) the development of specialized crafts and the distribution of labor, and (7) metal production (the first use of metal--copper--marks the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic Period).



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
id also like to point out an advanced peoples did live in this region. (yonugami japan etc)

they are called the "JOMON" or the rice cultivators.

pregnators of the asiatic chinese japanese and others.

quite astute and clever builders....
edit on 5-8-2012 by okamitengu because: clarity



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 


Yes, I read about them but decided to leave them out for the sake of space.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
In 4000 years, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people rejected the idea that Mt. Rushmore is a man-made structure.


LOL

I doubt it would take that long for this thread's creator.

Harte






top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join