Remnants of a Lost World...

Interesting topic, and I very strongly lean towards the belief that human history stretches back alot farther than 15000 years.

I do not think we made it this far with regards to technology but thats because technology went down a different path. All the gizmo's and doodads we have now are a product of invention which someone randomly thought of and I assume most invention relates to the needs and wants of the time. For me it makes sense that along time ago technology went down a different road and instead of electric or combustion engines they used blimps or gliders and used sunlight to cut rocks like laser? If the ancient world was as advanced 20000 years ago as we were in 1800, that would also be plausible to me as well.

We will never know until we find direct proof but its still amazing to think about what was going on so many eons ago. There is a lot of disasters that could easily erase a civilization or take it down to almost nothing and its not a matter of if they happen its when.

AAT, Slayer!

No, not Ancient Astronaut Theory, rather... Another Awesome Thread.

But, while we're in the subject, I've made my position pretty clear on AAT, and no matter what your stance is in how human life sprout up to begin with, I consider the overall, encompassing notion to be that, no matter how you slice it our ancestors (whatever that may mean to you) were much more advanced in our past than we give them credit for.

S & F, naturally.

S&F! cant wait to S&F the next 2 parts of the series
as ever, we continue to come closer to finding "Atlantis"
underwater or underground buried beneath layers of succeeding generations
like that complex found while digging a septic tank

between this "Atlantean" culture and our own there may be one or more intermediate cultures some having failed
like the abortive attempt at civilization that came and went before the Ancient egyptians,[whether these are the same as those claimed to be the true builders of the giza complex or not remains to be seen, i believe the abortive pre egyptian culture may have attempted to build over the giza complex but lacking a proper irrigation system like that of the AE they failed due to increasing desertification] others, perhaps those founded on the "bedrock" of the past as is readily apparent in peru, were able to last longer and become part of the historical record, or as is speculated by some regarding egypt had their works co-opted by and misascribed to succeeding cultures.

The Heliolithic Culture of Brunet Peoples outline-of-history.mindvessel.net...

The Mediterranean or Iberian division of the Caucasian race had a wider range in early times, and was a less specialized and distinctive type than the Nordic. It is very hard to define its southward boundaries from the Negro, or to mark off its early traces in Central Asia from those of early Mongolians. Wilfred Scawen Blunt[1] says that Huxley “had long suspected a common origin of the Egyptians and the Dravidians of India, perhaps a long belt of brown-skinned men from India to Spain in very early days”.
t is possible that this “belt” of Huxley’s of dark-white and brown-skinned men, this race of brunet-brown folk, ultimately spread even farther than India; that they reached to the shores of the Pacific, and that they were everywhere the original possessors of the Neolithic culture and the beginners of what we call civilization. It is possible that these Brunet peoples are so to speak the basic peoples of our modern world. The Nordic and the Mongolian peoples may have been but northwestern and northeastern branches from this more fundamental stem. Or the Nordic race may have been a branch, while the Mongolian, like the Negro, may have been another equal and distinct stem with which the brunet-browns met and mingled in South China. Or the Nordic peoples also may have developed separately from a Paleolithic stage.

At some period in human history (see Elliot Smith’s The Migrations Of Early Culture) there seems to have been a special type of Neolithic culture widely distributed in the world which had a group of features so curious and so unlikely to have been independently developed in different regions of the earth, as to compel us to believe that it was in effect one culture. It reached through all the regions inhabited by the brunet Mediterranean race, and beyond through India, further India, up the Pacific coast of China, and it spread at last across the Pacific and to Mexico and Peru. It was a coastal culture not reaching deeply inland.




This peculiar development of the Neolithic culture, which Elliot Smith called the heliolithic [2] culture, included many or all of the following odd practices:

circumcision,
the very queer custom of sending the father to bed when a child is born, known as the couvade,
the practice of massage,
the making of mummies,
megalithic monuments[3] (e.g. Stonehenge),
artificial deformation of the heads of the young by bandages,
tattooing,
religious association of the sun and the serpent, and
the use of the symbol known as the swastika (see Figure 115: The Swastika) for good luck. This odd little symbol spins gaily round the world; it seems incredible that men would have invented and made a pet of it twice over.

Elliot Smith traces these associated practices in a sort of constellation all over this great Mediterranean-India Ocean-Pacific area. Where one occurs, most of the others occur. They link Brittany with Borneo and Peru. But this constellation of practices does not crop up in the primitive homes of Nordic or Mongolian peoples, nor does it extend southward much beyond equatorial Africa.



Figure 116: Relationship of Human Races (Diagrammatic Summary)

For thousands of years, from 15,000 to 10,000 B.C., such a heliolithic culture and its brownish possessors may have been oozing round the world through the warmer regions of the world, drifting by canoes often across wide stretches of sea. It was then the highest culture in the world; it sustained the largest, most highly developed communities. And its region of origin may have been, as Elliot Smith suggests, the Mediterranean and North African region. It migrated slowly age by age. It must have been spreading up the Pacific Coast and across the island stepping-stones to America, long after it had passed on into other developments in its areas of origin.

I have yet to see a picture of a roof.
A civilization living underwater would not need a roof, but walls.

I see in the picture how people would gather there to create a current which would have been controlled, to cut stone. And all of that happening underwater.

reply to post by TRUELIES11


If they were underwater then why create a drain which is clearly seen in the quoted image.

reply to post by will2learn

It has nothing to do with rain water, but light.

reply to post by Cruff


I have a theory on those 'bumps' in the wall stones.

Whatever the reason for building these amazing monuments around the world, one thing seems to be certain and true of most of these sites....they were built to last.

The builders were obviously much more intelligent and advanced than we give them credit for today, and would have known and experienced natural phenomena like eruptions, tremors and Earthquakes.

For a builder, wanting to build a structure that will stand the test of time, hold firm against all that nature can muster, takes careful planning.

If you happen to be in an area prone to siesmic activity, you will eaither have to move elsewhere to build, or come up with a system that nullifies the tremors and quakes.

That's what i reckon these strange bumps on the blocks are for.

With their advanced mathmatical and astronomical knowledge evidenced in almost every ancient site discovered, it's clear that these people were smart...but how smart?

Clever enough to build in ways that have stood the test of time in quake zones, and continue to baffle world experts today.

It's clear that they had an extraordinary command of stone masonry, but what if they knew and understood more about geology and rocks than only quarrying, shaping and placing the stone?

What if they understood, perhaps by observation and experimentation...reasonance?

It's possible the 'bumps' on these stones are a kind of natural, inbuilt, 'tuning fork'...by quarrying and shaping these stones, the finished block would have a certain reasonance frequency...if all of the blocks were all exactly the same size and shape, and were made of the same materials, they would have the same or a very similar frequency....by deliberately shaping them to ALL be odd sizes and shapes, and setting them at odd angles to each other the frequencies will be different in each block, or no neighboring block would be the same frequency to the next one.

The bumps could simply be the means to 'fine tune' the frequency of the block, by chipping a little off here and there, or leaving more on one side than the other, the reasonance of that particular piece can be altered.

Why would this be important in massive stone monuments?

Well...as the vibrations from a quake or tremor build up, blocks that are of a sympathetic reasonance frequency, will also begin to amplify and pass the vibration along the next block until the whole structure is violently shaking in 'tune' with the frequency of the quake.

By making each block a different frequency, sympathetic vibrations among the stones causing the structure to shatter and collapse, are lessened.

This is why no two of these 'bumps' or fine tuning protuberances are the same...each one is unique to the block and it's size and shape and internal crystaline structure.

The evidence that the system worked, are these huge stones still standing after millenia in Earthquake zones.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

reply to post by SLAYER69

That is not a drain. It is a channel for a current.

reply to post by TRUELIES11


Ah I see.

You realize the stone circle is just a remnant foundation. The previous covering structure was dismantled by the Spanish right?

Perhaps this will shed a little bit of light on those bumps.

'Manoeuvring Protuberances' :

These small protuberances are found on the oldest (and arguably most sacred) Egypt and South American constructions. They are generally assumed to have functioned as 'hitching points' for maneuvering the blocks into place, however there are several examples where they have been left as if to demonstrate some other meaning...

Mortise and Tenon Joints:


It is perhaps surprising to find that some of the earliest known examples of masonry exhibit a sophisticated understanding of joinery. This particular construction feature is reasonably explained as having followed the transition from building structures first from wood then stone.


Some examples of the Various 'Mortise and Tenon' joins used in the construction of The Osirion, at Abydoss, in Egypt. This is considered one of the oldest buildings in Egypt, and is quoted as having only one other structure of contemporary design, that being the Valley-Temple at Giza. Both structures used the technique of continuous-lintelled trilithon's, seen also at Stonehenge III.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

reply to post by SLAYER69

You realize the stone circle is just a remnant foundation. The previous covering structure was dismantled by the Spanish right?

Are you saying the Spanish dismantled what was covering the stone and it is but a foundation? Did you not say something about the original structures covered with newer construction? That is not a foundation. Why build a foundation that outlasts what is built on top of it by thousands of years, when you can build what can last as long as the foundation?

reply to post by SLAYER69


S&F
Hi Slayer firstly thank you for "inviting" me to your thread.

Its been a while since I saw anything worthwhile here and plenty of times
I wondered if you were "up to something" thinking that you probably were.
I was right and although I probably wont be able to start reading your thread
today, I am looking forward to it because now there is something interasting to read.

Anyway your threads always aroused my interest, and I know you wont let me down
this time either.
Ill be jumping in soon enough.

reply to post by SLAYER69
S&F. Bumping for reading later.

Originally posted by TRUELIES11
Are you saying the Spanish dismantled what was covering the stone and it is but a foundation?

Yes it's the foundation of the now gone tower.

Did you not say something about the original structures covered with newer construction?

Yes, But there is no telling how old the tower itself was or who originally built it. Nor does it speak to whether the foundation originally had other purposes. Suffice it to say we just don't know.

That is not a foundation.

Why?

Why build a foundation that outlasts what is built on top of it by thousands of years, when you can build what can last as long as the foundation?

We don't know if they hadn't.
What we do know is that the Spanish removed the tower looking for Gold.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thank you for another wonderful thread full of things I have not seen before!

I find these photos amazing! What could cause this.

Nice read.
Some indentations in the stones i recognise from the Moon and Mars, it holds a sort of connections and hardware.
I know it sounds strange but these large stones are reused technology. It''s like using the metal of your spaceship to build a hut.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Why?

To be a foundation makes no sense. What about the detail? Have you thought maybe the Spanish dismantled what was built on top of it because they were aware, that it is not a foundation? To marvel at the work that has been done and then to call it a foundation is silly. A foundation is built to support and ground a structure. The foundation would be underground and there would be no need for aesthetics.

Eh, I think it was the Nephilim. To them those giant walls would have been waist high and with the nephilim's supposed strength the stone would have seemed much more malleable. Last but not least I think the guy in the video from the OP was scared @#$#less at 1 hour in after he discovered he had been led out into nowhere by some local thugs and might end up a red headed mummy himself.

So I agree with slayer. It wasn't aliens. The maker of those stones were home bred. Pardon the pun.

reply to post by TRUELIES11


I appreciate the feedback but the fact remains whether you think it's silly or not there was a tower built on top of it at one time. Why was it built and when? Is anybody's guess.

Also, In Central and South American ancient native cultures/civilizations building on top of older [sometimes more advanced structures] was the norm not the exception.