200,000 Year Old Annunaki Cities Discovered in Africa

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by SKMDC1

 

Advanced Aliens would look at the practical issues involved from a business standpoint and decide to mine elsewhere. Its that simple.

I'm not sure "practical issues from a business standpoint" is the best method for determining the translations of ancient texts and interpretting their meanings. Sitchin wasn't writing a movie script, he was peicing together clues from 9000 year old artifacts. The specifics of an ancient aliens race business plans are little out of scope in that discussion. There are a million reasons why an ancient alien race might want to mine gold here, just as there are a million reasons why they might come here to steal all our trees, or milk all our goats. The beings in question are ALIENS, so it doesn't really mean anything when you put human motivations, limitation, or business logic onto their decisions. It's not that simple.

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by Arken
The best pieces of evidence that there were giants on Earth a long, long time ago.

From my understanding, the granite would have to be above 800 degrees fahrenheit in order to be soft enough to make a footprint, which means that the foot would dissolve, as well as the print. So that may be why people are not buying tickets to SA to see a weathered rock of granite which looks like a footprint.

Interesting theory, excellent mind...

From my understanding, the footprint was printed when the granite was simple mud or wet sand.
So imagine how time ago...... when sand or mud become... granite.

It's not my theory, it's what I read from some geologist. He also said that granite is not a sedimentary rock, so there was never a time that it was mud. It is made deep down in the earth at very high temperatures.

Originally posted by Wanderer112358
I believe that many early civilizations we know about today are actually Annunaki in origin.

And I believe Aristotle was NOT Belgian.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by NeoVain

 

There were no humans 200,000 years ago and no skeletal evidence for human beings as we are today.

I'm hard pressed to say this is false, and others have shown reason to question his credibility.

Modern humans in our current form come from 70,000-50,000 years ago. We've only been capable of city building since around 20,000-12,000 years ago. To bring that up by a factor of 10 takes some serious evidence, and a couple of lines in the sand is not enough.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

take a zero off each of those numbers and you will be more accurate.

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Oannes

 

Sounds like L. Ron Hubbard's book "Battlefield Earth".

Is this a a Scientology scam or where the hell did this crap theory of mining gold come from?

"The Earth Chronicles" by Zecharian Sitchin. His ideas aren't popular right now (they were all the craze circa 1994) but his day will come back around. Just like the Patterson Bigfoot footage... what was once debunked will get a second look. Sitchin's books basically laid the foundation for all the "Ancient Aliens" stuff you see today. Van Daniken gets all the credit, but what he did pales in comparison to what Sitchin did. Unfortunately, Sitchin's books aren't noted properly and he neglects to site many sources at all and therefore he has tons and tons of debunkers right now, but his ideas are fascinating... and yes even the detail of the gold and what they needed it for is fascinating in the way he either correctly or incorrectly translates Sumerican cuneiform and glyphs to come to his conclusions. In his defense, he may have mistranslated some things, but he didn't make anything up. Everything he said he had a reason for saying it. That's what I love about his books. The archeology leads to the answers everytime... Now, it's up to an individual to determine whether they think his archeology was any good.

Anyone with a serious interest in the ancient alien theory has to read Sitchin. Otherwise, you are missing the whole foundation of the movement in my opinion.

uh sitchin was a sloppy ignorant amateur claiming to have been an expert in a field he barely knew anything about.
they have a dictionary for the sumarian language, if he was out to properly translate the language he wouldn't have made up things, yes he made up things, he would have translated the words correctly.
oh wait he was out to sell books.

he sowed total confusion by conflating different stories from different cultures, used words that a language didn't have and made up definitions for words he had no clue about

that is poor scholarship and we should be looking to the experts not figuring out what they mean on our own if our basis is flawed and wrong.

by the way where can i find evidence that any texts talk about anyone mining gold? i've read the texts and not one version except the nonsense from sitchin and others says anything about mining for gold. the story sitchins and other AAT believers site is the babylonian story, and the reason man was created was because the lesser gods were tired of working fields and digging canals not mining gold.

uh. I didn't say Sitchin was right, I didn't even say his stuff was good. I said it was "fascinating" and that anyone with a serious interest in AAT should read his books. If someone doesn't understand where "gold mining" comes from in this discussion or why the Annunaki or the supposed planet Nibiru are constantly being mentioned, then they obviously need to understand where that information originated. I'm sorry that my post set you off on what has become a well rehearsed and understood "Sitchin is the devil" tirade. I really tried my best to not take sides in that argument and just state the facts of who he is and what he means in this AAT subculture. The only thing I defended about his work is that I don't think he purposely made things up just to sell books as you cynically say. I think he was an honest guy who did the best he could. I haven't see evidence that he mistranslated on purpose. Your opinion that he should've just looked things up in the Sumerian/English dictionary is not very useful. A major part of what he was trying to do was interpret this language with more accuracy (whether he was successful at doing that isn't the point) and so why would he depend on traditional translations that he already mistrusted? Anyway, I'm not defending Sitchin's scholarship, only his motives.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Wanderer112358
I believe that many early civilizations we know about today are actually Annunaki in origin.

And I believe Aristotle was NOT Belgian.

And I believe the central message of Buddhism is NOT "every man for himself"

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Wanderer112358
I believe that many early civilizations we know about today are actually Annunaki in origin.

And I believe Aristotle was NOT Belgian.

And I believe the central message of Buddhism is NOT "every man for himself"

You got that right. Sheesh, we read same sources

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by Arken
The best pieces of evidence that there were giants on Earth a long, long time ago.

From my understanding, the granite would have to be above 800 degrees fahrenheit in order to be soft enough to make a footprint, which means that the foot would dissolve, as well as the print. So that may be why people are not buying tickets to SA to see a weathered rock of granite which looks like a footprint.

Interesting theory, excellent mind...

From my understanding, the footprint was printed when the granite was simple mud or wet sand.
So imagine how time ago...... when sand or mud become... granite.

Granite was never mud....it is formed from molten material, so unless this giant happened to step in a flow of lava at the exact moment a super flash freeze struck the area then this is NOT a footprint.

reply to post by SKMDC1

The beings in question are ALIENS, so it doesn't really mean anything when you put human motivations, limitation, or business logic onto their decisions. It's not that simple.

In the material world, the same rules of physics apply-- "Aliens" or not.

Be sure to include in their "needs" a reason for why they even need "ships" or "gold" anyway.

You want them to be "specially" above the material world, yet seem to buy into the "slave labor for metal" theory as well.

First off,in no way,shape, or form am i trying to talk down on this theory or put down or hurt anyones opinion towards this subject but there were a few things Zech had said about his finding of the annunaki before he passed that i wanted to tell you on ATS.Ill look for the article as fast as i can.Anyway,he stated that what he had been doing was only a THEORY.Also,even said himself that this whole thing wasn't true or false but just another IDEA like the rest of the worlds theories of "where we came from".If i remember correctly,he never actually had any proof that that race even existed.Ive read and kept up with this story as best i could till his death.Sure everything points to aliens but not once in history has anyone,to my findings said anything about the "annunaki" ever existing.Zech was the only person who made that claim and everyone else just seemed to believe that its real based on his words not actual evidence that supports the MYTH.where in any ancient culture did it ever mention the name "Annunaki" ? But,like everyone always says "do your own research".And,if or when you find something that has actual proof, instead of saying "its Annunaki" rite off the bat without thorough research,be sure and let me know.please.im one of the many trying to understand this story as well.

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Oannes

 

Sounds like L. Ron Hubbard's book "Battlefield Earth".

Is this a a Scientology scam or where the hell did this crap theory of mining gold come from?

"The Earth Chronicles" by Zecharian Sitchin. His ideas aren't popular right now (they were all the craze circa 1994) but his day will come back around. Just like the Patterson Bigfoot footage... what was once debunked will get a second look. Sitchin's books basically laid the foundation for all the "Ancient Aliens" stuff you see today. Van Daniken gets all the credit, but what he did pales in comparison to what Sitchin did. Unfortunately, Sitchin's books aren't noted properly and he neglects to site many sources at all ...

Not to mention he simply made up whatever "facts" he needed to support his hare-brained idea - including drawing his own completely imaginary depictions from nonexistent Sumerian cylinder seals and inventing translations for words in a written language he never could even read (and never claimed to be able to read.)

Harte

reply to post by hisshadow


Again, you can't carbon date a wall. You can carbon date the mater around the wall that is biological. And guess what, people can, shockingly, dig down to the 200,000 year mark.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Carbon dating says otherwise.

Also if a being were made of a different material more Alien to the land around would its reaction to the surface be the same as the native beings... 1 wondered in relation to the footprint. So like it may have been still as hard a material as it is or near that hard and it reacted to the being who stepped on it.

my 3 cents

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by Arken
The best pieces of evidence that there were giants on Earth a long, long time ago.

From my understanding, the granite would have to be above 800 degrees fahrenheit in order to be soft enough to make a footprint, which means that the foot would dissolve, as well as the print. So that may be why people are not buying tickets to SA to see a weathered rock of granite which looks like a footprint.

Interesting theory, excellent mind...

From my understanding, the footprint was printed when the granite was simple mud or wet sand.
So imagine how time ago...... when sand or mud become... granite.

Granite is igneous in other words comes out of a volcano/magma any giant making a footprint in that would be burnt to a cinder never mind the problem of the lava cooling quick enough to preserve the footprint. Conclusion : fake footprint made by an idiot who didn't research the geology first!

Biggest cover up in history is the "official timeline" presented by archaeologists.

Great find, OP.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Granite is igneous in other words comes out of a volcano/magma any giant making a footprint in that would be burnt to a cinder never mind the problem of the lava cooling quick enough to preserve the footprint. Conclusion : fake footprint made by an idiot who didn't research the geology first!

Also, it wouldn't have ended up as granite if it cooled where it could be stepped on.

Granite is intrusive - it cannot form at normal atmospheric pressure.

Harte

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Mercurio

 

While the Annunaki thing has no real base on reality, mechanical robots are not superior to biological machines like us in most not direct computational tasks. Biological machines need no real maintenance, consume less energy and replicate cheaply.

Take Annunaki technology and energy production techniques (yes they dont exist but for arguments sake)... and stick an AI on a bunch of these giants...

Bagger 288

And integrate an internal, fully automated processing facility inside it and let it go about its business prospecting... im sure its a might sight more efficient and productive compared to a bunch of lion cloth wearing pick wielding organic slaves.

Hey for me an organic being will always be superior to a mechanical one of similar design, but you gotta be realistic and think efficiently about this sort of thing and hey im just a dumb human.

reply to post by NeoVain


Tellinger is another FRAUD putting populist SPIN on genuine archaeology. Just trying to mount the out of control BAND-WAGON that is the 'Ancient Aliens' MYTH! Never let your TRUE BELIEFS be clouded by IMAGINATIVE NONSENSE... watch "Ancient Aliens Debunked" on youtube, please, for TRUTH'S SAKE... I'm not saying we weren't or aren't visited by ETs, just that the so called 'evidence' is truly ridiculous... Interesting never-the-less. Maybe without the BS AA SPIN the number of people interested would be much less - still no excuse to fill minds with embarrassing conjecture... And I'm not saying there weren't stone, wood'n'rope based civilisations in the prehistoric, Pleistocene age... I've heard about these YEARS AGO...

reply to post by BigfootNZ


I think it would depend on the mission parameters but I do not see how an electronic inorganic automaton can surpass a biological one in large scale jobs in terms of handling complexity, we are making many supposition also around what can be possible in AI terms, but the simplicity and adaptability of the biological approach is huge.

We could even go down to the original "creator" and that we are simply the result of a process | design that will indeed culminate in a superior inorganic being as proposed in the movie AI...