Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by WarminIndy

---

Good post!

"Evolution is supposed to be advancement, so why did that advancement occur in a Golden Age but then regress?"

Maybe it was an advancement.

Societies all seem to follow the same trend. They build themselves up, then destroy themselves through overzealous application of beliefs.

Initially, forming religion and building architecture was a good thing that helped people survive by bringing them together in cooperation and giving them shelter! Of course as time goes on, the "elite leisure" class continues to grow, acting as a parasite on the workers. Eventually they demand to much, they devote to many resources to superficial things such as elaborate stone temples covered in artwork. If a man spends his whole life carving stone artwork, he has to be fed and provided for by another man. It comes to a point where a behavior that was once extremely beneficial to a group actually begins to hurt them through over zealous application. So you may view it as a de-evolution that man stopped putting resources into these basically useless temples (in terms of survival) when it reality it was an evolution because they were now putting these resources back into survival, thus making their society more "fit".

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by WarminIndy

---

exactly. we dont need atlantis and hoverboats to explain this.

People drew inspiration from their environment. And we all live on planet earth. One of the biggest impacts on humanity was the stars. Astronomy is the basis for many religions. Im sure you've seen the movie zeitgeist and how the whole story of jesus is a parable for the movement of the heavens, and the seasons, and the sun which was then anthropomorphized.

IMO- all societies will share many traits because we are all using basically the same environment to form our beliefs.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by FoosM

---

Very cool.
The elephants really blow my mind.
Because if the scientists are correct. There is no way possible for a Mayan to have ever seen an elephant.
In fact it would be impossible.

So now we are left with.

1. Either someone described or showed them an image of an elephant.
   
2. They travelled somewhere there was an elephant
   
3. Someone visited them with an elephant
   
4. There were elephants alive in the americas at the time the image was carved
   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by Gorman91


Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?

edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)

The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.

edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

The god Bolon Yookte' K'uh is associated with War and Xibalbá,

Warfare seems to have played a part in the ultimate downfall of El Mirador (The Kan Kingdom), as a large wall surrounding the western portion of the site appears to have been built in the Early Classic. One of the only documented battlefields of the ancient Maya world was found atop the Tigre pyramid where dozens of green obsidian spear points were found scattered atop debris indicating that the battle occurred after the pyramid had already fallen into disrepair. This suggests that the forces of Siyah K’ahk’ of Tikal overran this area likely some time in the late fourth century AD.

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by Gorman91


Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?

edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)

The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.

edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Rurik was a Viking, or at least where he came from Vikings owned that territory.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by Gorman91


Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?

edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)

The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.

edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

Rurik was a Viking, or at least where he came from Vikings owned that territory.

Viking is an umbrella term. The Rus were descended from Scythians. The Rus are Slavs whereas the Vikings of Scandinavia are not.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by WarminIndy

---

My opinion of the whole situation.

There was an actual man that was the basis for the story of jesus.

This person represented change, an upheaval, to the current ruling system.

The people in power did not want this new person subverting and weakening their power.

The story of this man then gets stolen and changed and utilized by the ruling class for the same reason the old religion was controlled by the elites of society. To control everyone else and benefit themselves.

And then throw on top of it, The roman church was well known to destroy and persecute ANYTHING that went against their official dogma.

Thus making it harder for us to determine what heck was really going on.

The only thing i can say for certain is that some people have no problem telling gullible people that there is an invisible man in the sky judging them, and that if they dont want to spend eternity in hell, they better do what the church says.

Make no mistake, con men are nothing new.

I apologize if me not seeing it your way doesn't sit well with you.

Google Earth? And just how clear of a shot are you gonna get from that? Surely nothing remotely close to being there in person.

That is exactly what im saying, when a human is born they dont hate anyone or hurt anyone unless they see someone else do it in turn, and i witnessed that first hand with many new born children.

Nature is the same way, animals do not feel hate or take revenge, somewhere at some point in time, we must have witnessed such acts, other wise i dont see nature being the one to hate, or even provide such conditions.

Do you ever think about killing people? if no, then what makes you think others are born thinking any different, its the influence after that creates such ideas.

No such thing as "russians" really, it was just some people that came to the land and just lived there, no police, no politics, no churches or religion to speak of, just human beings living, which hard for a lot of people to grasp the idea. When viking came to the land and discovered the "russians" they could not fight them, so they worked hand in hand, and "Russians" are really good at taking other peoples habits and culture practices, so no evidence would be found since there "culture" is mixed.

Now back to OP's original post, we were talking about a global civilization exsisting past 10k years, which has nothing to with the natives, but all i was saying, is that it is highly possible that a very advanced culture or civilization exsisted in the past, and that is why there are architectural similarities, because they all shared their knowledge, if they were primitive and violent, that would not be possible, and this thread would not even be here, since there would be no architecture to speak of.