Ancient Items That Shouldn't Exist (OOPARTs)

reply to post by smyleegrl


although i have known of these stories and objects its always nice to see them pop up again here and there so people dont forget ^^


ty

reply to post by Byrd


There is a difference in moving large slabs on land and by boats.

The logistics of moving by boat is much more complicated.

Then we are talking about Micronesians, basically aborigines.

Even if it was constructed around 1200AD, it still is a fantastic example of human endeavor.

(************** Double post
***************************)

reply to post by smyleegrl


And a good post it was too. Your posts got people talking about these "aberrations" which can only be a good thing. Surely one of the points of ATS is to encourage discussion, and not to take another's word as fact (especially self styled experts).

Keep it up, and I know that myself and others will be looking forward to your next post.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Brilliant thread Smyleegrl, thanks again.

I have literally only just started it but thought i would share something i saw last week. It doesn't explain how such big rocks were shifted at Nan Madol but it does offer an explanation for what could have happened to the city and also offers a very good reason for why Polynesian expansionism suddenly stopped.

How Tsunamis changed history

reply to post by smyleegrl


Nan Madol - possibly constructed prior to the rise in sea level?

Also, the thunder stone possibly the largest/heaviest stone moved by man (est 1,500 tons), was floated on a barge without any particular problem.

If the attempt to move a stone similar to Nan Madol stones had been done by Engineers and failed, I would give it some credence, as it was, attempted to be moved by Archaeologists and failed; is perhaps to be expected.

This thread is just one of the reasons I truly appreciate you as a member here.
Well done! S&F. If you didn't receive at least one applause for this, I would be very disappointed.

Nan Madol is just one more piece of the puzzle that should make it abundantly clear, our ancestors were not ignorant troglodytes.

The Acambaro figurines. Can we really expect that modern archaeologists would admit any of these figurines were real, and represented dinosaurs, even if the evidence were overwhelming for just one of them? Not gonna happen anytime soon. Consensus always takes precedent over evidence among academia. Sometimes, that can be a good thing. Most times, it isn't.

I truly wish, as a species, we actually knew what we like to think we know. Instead, we have become an arrogant, self-aggrandizing, society that has stunted our own growth. As it is, we are more likely to destroy ourselves before we ever become the pinnacle of civilization we like to think we already are.

Good job Smyleegrl.
While I don't believe in every oddity found, I do think there is evidence that points to either a advanced civilization before ours, or that ancient man was much more sophisticated than we've been led to believe. Don't mind the critics, keep digging.

reply to post by Byrd


Please don't take this as being disrespectful.

It seems safe to infer that you are experienced in the research of these kinds of things. I'm not, I have a passive curiosity about them. I watch Ancient Aliens (I love the questions they ask. I don't agree with the answers they offer, and I know it's very biased towards the conclusions they draw). But there is just a feeling of "rightness" to the fact our history is wrong, I don't know how, I don't pretend to have an answer, and it could very well be that I am the only one out there with this feeling.

Anyhow, to my point. You quite handily in two posts refuted everything offered in the op. But you offered no proof for any of it. If these truly are misrepresented I'd like to read about the proof. And for the amazing things ancient cultures did, how did they do them?

To the OP, thank you for bringing these to my attention, I hadn't heard of any of them. And regardless of whether they can be explained or not, it's always a worthwhile endeavor to question what we think we know, especially when it's being told to us by people who weren't there.

Originally posted by Klassified
The Acambaro figurines. Can we really expect that modern archaeologists would admit any of these figurines were real, and represented dinosaurs, even if the evidence were overwhelming for just one of them? Not gonna happen anytime soon. Consensus always takes precedent over evidence among academia. Sometimes, that can be a good thing. Most times, it isn't.

Wouldn't common-sense tell us that perhaps those that created the figurines may have seen fossilised dinosaurs? Axe-heads recovered in West Tofts, Norfolk, have fossilised mollusc shells displayed in them, indicating such items were particularly prized. And fossilised teeth, often hominid, were found displayed as dragon teeth, in Chinese Herbalists by the palaeontologist Max Schlosser, that is how it was first discovered that early man had populated that region. Archaeologists may not be willing to commit themselves without further evidence or they would be committing professional suicide, but that doesn't mean that the most outlandish explanations should prevail over common-sense and reason for those of us who take a broader view of the information available to us. The Ancient Greeks collected Stone-Age axe-heads and kept them as talismans, believing them to be thunderbolts, and that they would protect them from lightening if kept in the home. The Greeks again, collected the fossils of marine dinosaurs and kept them in huge jars, claiming them to be the skeletons of giants. Archaeology is a relatively new body of study, which means that there is still much to learn for those engaged in it, and while it may be cute to believe that such things are being kept from us, to truth of the matter is more likely that they simply do not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion as yet. That is no excuse to simply assume that we are being lied to and return to the ignorant superstitions of our ancient ancestors.

Click here for more information.

Nice work. Maybe instead of doing this for ATS for free you should make a web site and make some cash.

Personally, given the flag frequency, I suspect the PhD that you are working towards is entitled 'How the average ATS member is less questioning and enquiring of mind that the average Kindergarten Student'

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Why in the world would you post something so rude and unnecessary?

You know, manners and decorum will get you further in life than rude, know-it-all replies.

I just lost all respect I had for you. And I had quite a lot. But this type of response is uncalled for and beneath you.


dn:

reply to post by smyleegrl


I would ignore such comments. ATS as of late has become a haven of rude and argumentative posters. I rarely post any more for this reason. Good job smyleegrl! Very interesting thread. Isn't that why we come here? To discuss interesting stuff?

Settle down kids.

Its just a conspiracy forum.

I think there are 2 schools of thought at clash here. Some of the older members on here might remember a time when only well researched and quality threads got the attention they deserve. Which isn't to say your thread is not quality. I think what some of the critics are trying to say is instead of trying to sell something you know very little about one should as a general rule post about what they know and not regurgitate information in hopes of just farming stars and flags because you want to hang with the cool kids.

Whatever that means.

No doubt you have a curious mind and would like to shed more light on the topics that interest you but there are already threads on the topics and if everybody did more searching instead of creating a new thread just for the popularity this forum would have more quality and less fluffy quantity.

Then there are the new ATS recruits who have no experience of what things were like here before and who have an instant gratification mentality that if its not on the front page its not worth reading. They would love a new thread on the same topic every 6 months because its easier than doing real research, forming an actual solid fully formed opinion on the topic and then discussing it here. But thems the breaks and this is the world we live in. Dont get me wrong OP I mean no ill will at all but subject matters such as this rely immensely on CREDIBILITY, and I question your expertise on the subject. I know you would love to be the next SLAYER but without credibility all you are doing is feeding the unthinking masses. Which in turn just adds to the problem more than solving it.

Just as a mental exercise how many of the people that have starred and flagged this thread do you think actually followed the links past what you posted? How many actually went off and did further research and really questioned everything and how many just skimmed the post looked at the pictures and said "bloody lying archeologist keeping the truth from us"

My personal belief on OOPARTS is undecided. A bit like UFO's they cant all be fakes and hoaxes and if even 1 of them is real the whole game changes. Having said that I dont have a taste for fakes.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by Bybyots
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

Wow,

smyleegrl, that's amazing; how did you manage to produce this thread and the 'Ancient Maps That Shouldn't Exist' thread and not know who Charles Hapgood is?

I went to find the book that you mentioned that inspired the map thread, Earth's Forbidden Secrets; it mentions Hapgood, and in fact, you had to mention Hapgood yourself in the thread in order to introduce the Orontius Finaeus Map, which was discovered by Hapgood.

Hapgood is the one person in your map thread that ties together all of the maps, and he is also connected to the hoaxed Acámbaro figurines in this thread.

If you had not insisted that your reading has been limited to the Maxwell Igan, I would say that you are reading Childress, Hapgood and Cremo.

To answer your question, yes, Hapgood is considered to be very controversial due to his beliefs in polar shift, the weird maps he used to try and prove it, and the Acámbaro figurines, amongst other things.

Sigh.

I just started looking into Hapgood, and from the few sources I've perused he certainly seems...fringe, to say the least. Thanks for connecting the dots for me.

My only excuse....today was the last day of spring break. I haven't used my brain in a week.

Charles Hapgood fringe?
thats just plain ignorant
his theory of shifting land masses is a very good one, it may also coincide with continental drift
imagine an orange peel still on the orange but moving freely over said orange.
Einstein thought the theory was a good one, heres his views

“I frequently receive communications from people who wish to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity, and – if it continues to prove itself of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface. … I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating, idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with the theory of the earth’s development.”

Flem-Ath

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

I think there are 2 schools of thought at clash here. Some of the older members on here might remember a time when only well researched and quality threads got the attention they deserve. Which isn't to say your thread is not quality. I think what some of the critics are trying to say is instead of trying to sell something you know very little about one should as a general rule post about what they know and not regurgitate information in hopes of just farming stars and flags because you want to hang with the cool kids.

The way we learn is to ask questions. Hence the reason for posting the info here. I know there are a lot of members who have way more experience and knowledge in the field than I do....and they generally set me right when I make a mistake. These threads are not "farming" for stars and flags....and I'm already a cool kid.

No doubt you have a curious mind and would like to shed more light on the topics that interest you but there are already threads on the topics and if everybody did more searching instead of creating a new thread just for the popularity this forum would have more quality and less fluffy quantity.

I understand your point, but just reading the older threads isn't enough for me. I want to start a dialogue, interact with others over the topic...and that is what's happened. Lots of times, when I reply to an older thread....that's the end of it. Rarely do I get a response, and in fact, many of those members are no longer on ATS.

Dont get me wrong OP I mean no ill will at all but subject matters such as this rely immensely on CREDIBILITY, and I question your expertise on the subject. I know you would love to be the next SLAYER but without credibility all you are doing is feeding the unthinking masses. Which in turn just adds to the problem more than solving it.

I never claimed expertise in the subject, in fact, its the opposite. I know next to nothing about ancient archaeology and history. I recognize I have no credibility as an expert, but to be fair I never stylized myself as an expert. I thought my OP made it clear that there were different interpretations to the information, including the possibility of hoax or misunderstanding.

As for being the next Slayer...those are big shoes to fill. I'm quite comfortable being me.

Just as a mental exercise how many of the people that have starred and flagged this thread do you think actually followed the links past what you posted? How many actually went off and did further research and really questioned everything and how many just skimmed the post looked at the pictures and said "bloody lying archeologist keeping the truth from us"

My personal belief on OOPARTS is undecided. A bit like UFO's they cant all be fakes and hoaxes and if even 1 of them is real the whole game changes. Having said that I dont have a taste for fakes.

I have no idea how many people followed the links, but that is not my concern. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink and all that.

Thanks for the criticism, though. I mean that. Constructive criticism, especially when presented so politely, is always welcome.

oh, and without Mr Hapgood,
i doubt we would be hearing of many of these ancient maps.
I like you SmyleGirl so please dont take my posts as offensive or aggressive.
I just dont see how you can call Hapgood "fringe" after posting a very successful ancient maps thread which Charles Hapgood is a major part of, whether you didnt realise it or not.

Keep up the great threads

reply to post by smyleegrl


Most welcome.

Again I dont want to be misunderstood as this is a topic I like to look into myself just wanted to point out a relative perspective nothing more. Also I think being questioned on things is the best form of development for an individual. There would be no growth if we all just agreed with what was presented mainstream OR fringe information.

Keep learning.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

I think what some of the critics are trying to say is instead of trying to sell something you know very little about one should as a general rule post about what they know and not regurgitate information in hopes of just farming stars and flags because you want to hang with the cool kids.

That's a rather harsh assumption of the OP's intentions. I mean I could be wrong, but it seemed like the intention was to promote discussion about an area of interest to the op, to show those of us who share that interest some items we may not have heard about before. For which I'm grateful as I had not.

No doubt you have a curious mind and would like to shed more light on the topics that interest you but there are already threads on the topics and if everybody did more searching instead of creating a new thread just for the popularity this forum would have more quality and less fluffy quantity.

Again you assume the op is doing this for the popularity. And just because something has been discussed in an older thread doesn't mean that a new discussion won't contain quality content. I mean I totally get when several threads about the same topic springing up around the same time that unnecessarily dilutes and divides the discussion and should be avoided. But when a thread hasn't been touched in months, possibly years. The members who have joined since that original thread passed might benefit from a new discussion.

Dont get me wrong OP I mean no ill will at all but subject matters such as this rely immensely on CREDIBILITY, and I question your expertise on the subject. I know you would love to be the next SLAYER but without credibility all you are doing is feeding the unthinking masses. Which in turn just adds to the problem more than solving it.

What does CREDIBILITY and expertise on the subject have to do with the op. The op presented information and sources and avoided stating a personal opinion about any of them. And imho, giving this kind of food to the mindless masses occasionally turns some of them into thinking individuals. And it those we should be focusing on. The willfully ignorant will remain so with or without our "food".

Just as a mental exercise how many of the people that have starred and flagged this thread do you think actually followed the links past what you posted?

I did.