It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by cripmeister
Supposedly a Captain made these maps from other ancient maps when Antarctica was still covered in ice. It has been laid over modern maps and is extremely accurate.
The story of the Piri Reis map is the story of how a perfectly innocent 16th-century navigational chart can end up, through no fault of its own, at the centre of a crackpot theory about our planet’s ancient history.
Piri Reis’s map, fascinating on its own, now leaves the realm of 15th-century navigators and enters the lands of ancient astronauts, ice-age civilizations, and shifting poles. Enter Charles Hapgood, who uses the Piri Reis map to argue, in his 1966 book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, a number of extraordinary things. Hapgood saw, at the bottom left of the map, what he believed to be an accurate representation of the ice-free coast of Antarctica. He fit that into his pre-existing theory that the Earth’s poles had shifted in the relatively recent past (or, of you like, that the Earth’s crust had shifted relative to the poles), leaving Antarctica ice-free, and that, 9,500 years ago, there was an advanced civilization that accurately mapped the Antarctic coastline. And that among Piri Reis’s ancient sources were maps from that civilization.
To put it more simply, Piri Reis, or the scribe who copied his work, may have realized, as he came to the Rio de la Plata, that he was going to run off the edge of his valuable parchment if he continued south. So he did the logical thing and turned the coastline to the east, marking the turn with a semicircle of crenelations, so that he could fit the entire coastline on his page. If that was the case, then the elaborate Hapgood hypotheses — or at least those elements based entirely on the Piri Reis map — would have no foundation whatever.
Originally posted by Zeer0
reply to post by jhn7537
Look, I believe (based on the evidence that i have unearthed) that we possibly have been visited sometime in our history. But the AAH is a total mockery of not only Ufology, History but to Humanity itself by perpetrating a Theory by using circumstantial and fabricated evidence, outrageous assertions, and a whole lot of paraphrasing Ancient Texts to put a UFO spin to it. And like many others I did believe in this, but If you watch the WHOLE Documentary (even if you break it into sections) you will see the Theory collapse.
Originally posted by Zeer0
reply to post by jhn7537
Never read it but I heard the book was highly speculative.
Let me ask, did you watch the Documentary at all?
Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
Originally posted by Xdream
reply to post by Hardstepah
I'm with you on this one! I hope to have time to view the entire 3+ hour documentary, however, there are too many places, artifacts, etc., and Indian STORIES which have been passed down for many, MANY generations that point to ancient visitation from other worlds. I just hope they return while I'm still alive to prove they really do exist! I'm hoping that's what going to happen 12-21-12!
Actually when it comes to the claims about the Vedic text etc you might disappointed to find out where the AAT in regards to the Vedic traditions actually comes from.
Secondly, there is a worldview that explains the "sky gods" but you're certainly not going to like it. It's found in Biblical Christianity. Go read Genesis 6. The point is, they're not aliens from another planet...although in truth, it's entirely possible that alien species exist. But the "evidence" used to support it for the AAT are a far stretch to reality. Nevertheless, ancient myths, stories, folklore etc come from somewhere. Again, go read Genesis 6.
But the term RUACH doesn't mean spirit, it means wind, or anything flying in the air quickly and causing wind The later theological elaboration, when God's figure was created, led to attaching to RUACH the meaning of spirit. But actually, this is not there. ...
--As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.
If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.
---The ones of you that just saw that stuff now will realize that it's an unknown thing that hovers on the water.
"Oh, btw there were over a hundred little animal totems in this grave site that has very stylized features much like you see on these things we call "ancient flying machines". I mean the flying machines have teeth and eyes and fins, but ohhhh no, those are flying devices and not fish!!!! It really makes the series suspect.
absolutely! I have no attention span either. Unless there is really cool dramatic music or someting then you can just forget about it!
Originally posted by blindlyzack
Sum it up, I'm not watching a 3 hour movie.
Most people are not aware of the symbolism rules of Byzantine or medieval art and so they are easy prey for Ancient Astronaut theories about it. This theory concerning Byzantine art could never work on someone who studies this type of art professionally. Let me show you why. First, let’s take one that Ancient Aliens showed in the background a few times in the last clip. It’s a very famous UFO-in-art painting, and it’s usually presented using a very poor quality image so you can’t see the details very well.
If you look closely you can see that these objects have distinct faces. They are actually representing the sun and the moon, and you would think that someone being honest about this would fill you in that they appear in almost every painting of a crucifixion done in the Byzantine style. The sun and the moon were consistently depicted with human characteristics, sometimes they had just faces; other times they had full bodies. The concept of representing the sun and the moon with human characteristics was a carry-over from the pagan artwork of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church simply continued that tradition of symbolizing the sun and the moon with human characteristics in the artwork that it had commissioned.
The sun and the moon are usually facing the cross, which is supposed to represent them being witnesses to the crucifixion. The sheer number of Byzantine crucifixion scenes where these objects are depicted in such a way that is obviously supposed to be the sun and the moon, should be enough to put this one to rest for good. Ancient Aliens goes on for a while about the 14th century fresco at the Viscoski Decani monastery in Kosovo.
It has been a big favorite of Ancient Astronaut theorists since it first appeared in a French magazine called Sputnik in the 1960’s This crucifixion scene is just like the others we have seen except it has a more full body representation of the sun and the moon. There are just as many examples of the sun and the moon being depicted in this way – with full bodies – in other Byzantine crucifixion scenes including in other places in this same monastery.