A Species With Amnesia

I thought I'd share some interesting short videos with you. I enjoy watching these when I'm in the mood for deep contemplation of our collective past. I've said quite a few times here at ATS that I don't agree with everything Graham has said or advocate but he does make a fairly reasonable argument about the end of the last Ice Age melt off as possibly being the source for many if not all the 'Flood Myths' we read about from all over the world.

No, I do not believe that there was a single flood that completely covered the entire surface of the planet but rather maybe that there were global regional coastal flooding which were the origins of some of those ancient tales. The Persian Gulf, The Red Sea, The Black Sea etc, Were all flooded out in prehistory due mainly to the Ocean levels rising.

Not to mention whole areas out in the Pacific. All about or around between 12,000 to 9,000 B.C.

So, sit back and enjoy...

Graham Hancock
A Species With Amnesia

Hugh Newman
Before The Maya

Graham Hancock, Andrew Collins & Hugh Newman
Göbekli Tepe, Turkey

Graham Hancock, Andrew Collins & Hugh Newman
Alaca Höyük, Turkey

reply to post by SLAYER69

Good stuff Slayer.

Do you agree with Graham, that maybe our dating is off on some sites around the world? Maybe by several thousand years on some of them? One would expect, there would be many sites like Gobekli Tepe. Maybe we're already looking at them, and just don't realize it?

reply to post by SLAYER69


There is no evidence anywhere on the planet for a world wide Flood!

Woops wrong persona.

SnF

randyvs
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

There is no evidence anywhere on the planet for a world wide Flood!

You mean ... like it says in the Bible?

I think there's a LOT of evidence. Consider how many people live at sea level. Consider how much of where people used to live is *currently* under water. Oh yeah ... there was 'flooding' ... and oh yeah ... there evidence for it world-wide.

It's all about 'how' the story is written. I try to not get caught up in that when I'm reading "a Slayer."

reply to post by Snarl


Do you also try not joke during a "Slayer"?
If so, good job!

reply to post by SLAYER69


And don't forget Doggerland, an area that we know for certain has flooded.
This sense of collective amnesia has been puzzling me recently, and I feel like I'm looking in the wrong places for stories that we should know, but have somehow forgotten.

Klassified
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Good stuff Slayer.

Do you agree with Graham, that maybe our dating is off on some sites around the world? Maybe by several thousand years on some of them? One would expect, there would be many sites like Gobekli Tepe. Maybe we're already looking at them, and just don't realize it?

I think it's very possible. I'd like to see a much more in depth look at many well known sites using modern methods. Tiahuanaco and Malta could be a start...

Tiahuanaco

POSNANSKY'S DATING TECHNIQUE

Prof. Posnansky summed up his 50 year study in a 4 volume work entitled Tiahuanaco, The cradle of American Man first published in 1945. He explains his theories, which are rooted in archeoastronomy, as follows. Since Earth is tilted on its axis in respect to the plane of the solar system, the resulting angle is known as the "obliqueness of the ecliptic" (one should not confuse this with another astronomical phenomenon known as "Precession", as critics of Posnansky have done). If viewed from the earth, the planets of our solar system travel across the sky in a line called the plane of the ecliptic.

At present our earth is tilted at an angle to of 23 degrees and 27 minutes, but this angle is not constant. The angle oscillates slowly between 22 degrees and 1 minute miminum to an extreme of 24 degrees and 5 minutes. A complete cycle takes roughly 41,000 years to complete. The alignment of the Kalasasaya temple depicts a tilt of the earth's axis amounting to 23 degrees, 8 minutes, 48 seconds, which according to astronomers, indicates a date of 15,000 B.C.

Between 1927 and 1930 Prof. Posnansky's conclusions were studied intensively by a number of authorities. Dr. Hans Ludendorff (Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Potsdam), Friedrich Becker of the Specula Vaticana, Prof. Arnold Kohlschutter (astronomer at Bonn University), and Rolf Müller (astronomer of the Institute of Astrophysics at Potsdam) verified the accuracy of Posnansky's calculations and vouched for the reliability of his conclusions.

What exactly was Arthur Posnansky looking at? When we turn back the clock and view the site from his perspective it appears to be a much older megalithic site. To me it resembled the great standing stones of Europe/UK.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c208600bc2c.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee529d5d2a85.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ec4ddcea0b3.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/206bfc677c20.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59380ad56daa.jpg[/atsimg]

Malta

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c5c968a0d30.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b67f579c57fc.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/432a6d408580.jpg[/atsimg]

To me the surrounding stones are very reminiscent of Gobekli Tepe. Elsewhere we find smooth cut and placed giant stone slabs very similar to those Dolmens found all over the UK, Europe etc...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db15f8b9f63e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6603af668986.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I believe in the global flood, but how to explain it, I don't know.

Some guy on this forum put forth the idea that the world was smaller when the flood happened, and then it grew, like the expanding earth model, which caused the waters to recede. If he is right, it could explain the global pyramids, global flood, why people used to live so long, sunken cities, tales of giants and where they have gone, etc, etc.

There is a lot of stuff we have no answers for, and it is creepy that, as you say, it seems to be some kind of amnesia.

It is a shame that the library of Alexandria burned down - I bet a lot of answers were there.

Edit: Oh I guess I should say that he thought that there was too much water for the ice age glaciers to account for the sunken cities. That is, if you took enough of water out of the oceans to put all of the sunken cities back well away from the coast lines then the ice caps would have to be so large to hold all of the water that it would be nearly impossible for the clouds to even stack ice that high. (Something like that.)

reply to post by Klassified


Hi all, and yes Klassified I believe there are many sites especially in south america and Mexico that have not been dated correctly. Carbon dating is only reliable up to a certain date which I do not off the top of my head now that date. Hopefully someone reading this will know that date. But why I do not believe that date is even important there are volcanoes everywhere around that area for which I am speaking that could through off carbon dating. And as they (as in scientist) would love to believe they know of every thing that could or would interfere with a carbon dating result. I believe there is so much that they do not know about. And I do not mean that to be a bad thing I just mean that no one could know everything. Well except for God.

Stari

Bleeeeep
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Some guy on this forum put forth the idea that the world was smaller when the flood happened, and then it grew, like the expanding earth model, which caused the waters to recede. If he is right, it could explain the global pyramids, global flood, why people used to live so long, sunken cities, tales of giants and where they have gone, etc, etc.

I am probably wrong but I believe when the world started having inhabitants on top of the land that the land was so full of oxygen that it helped people live longer healthier lives?

Ok, Now I need or I guess I am going to hear all the reasons why that cannot be the reason. I heard somewhere that if you follow Moses life in the Bible it shows that he lived for around 500 years.

Stari

reply to post by SLAYER69

Very interesting. This is why I think archaeologists should consult with other disciplines before making definitive decisions on any given site. Obviously, the disciplines may not always agree with one another, but that's ok, because it gives us a broader scope of information, and different perspectives from which to view that information.

Bottom line, it seems we have a LOT to learn about civilization prior to 9000BC, give or take. Come to think about it, we have a lot to learn about civilization just a few thousand years ago. I'd like to see a much greater degree of transparency and openness in our search to remember what has been forgotten.

reply to post by Klassified


I think you're right and I have something I think you and many others here will be interested in, in the works
I will be elaborating on it in much more in depth detail very soon.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I highly recommend that perhaps, if you have not already, you should read Immanuel Velikovsky.
He has some interesting theories. Also he seems to have done some good investigations into global flooding events, and even has, IMO, some good proof to back up his findings.

reply to post by SLAYER69


While you're talking about floods, I'll share this with you before I forget again. You mentioned the Newgrange circles, and were wondering about them.



I came across a theory a wee while ago, that I keep meaning to tell you. The suggestion was that they might represent the Corryvreckan Whirlpool by Jura. You would want to avoid that at all costs if you were travelling to Scotland.

Only slightly related to floods, but a bit relevant, hopefully.
Loving that beard!

ETA: Och, you've changed it away, you tricky thing, now I sound like a mad woman!

reply to post by SLAYER69


Listening to Hancock, or reading his works, is fun and interesting. But he is certainly full of it.

In the first vid, he states that "...there were some places where there were ... 30 foot rises (in sea level at the end of the last ice age) "pretty much overnight." The very next sentence has him taking an overnight 30 foot rise in sea level as a given.

There was no overnight 30 foot rise in sea level anywhere at any time during the period where the last ice age was ending, save perhaps the possibility of such a flood immediately downstream of a glacial dam break.
Note that he's not talking about tsunamis here - he just throws out a line of garbage - qualified by the terms "in some places" and "pretty much," and then completely discards both qualifiers.

He then goes on to point out that such a catastrophic rise (which at first he describes as "in some places") would be world-wide and permanent.

This is typical of the fringe. And a waste of time.

Lastly, I find it ironic that Hancock is supposedly addressing our collective "amnesia" while trying to demonstrate this with what he believes are actual memories, i.e. of an ancient and world wide flood.

There are many interesting things about the ancient past that are worth exploring. These vids contain nothing in that regard.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


A tic of the clock in geological terms...

We cannot deny that locations such as the Red Sea, Black Sea and Persian Gulf were at one time dry land. I won't defend him on his wording but these locations and many others were at one time dry land and well within the time frame of human habitation. Is it such a stretch to postulate that when those locations flooded out that it didn't happen by inches over periods of hundreds or thousands of years alone but may have on occasion happened rapidly? A lurching in the amounts of rises due to these periodic large scale melt off releases?

Science tells us these locations were dry, then Science tells us there were large melt offs sometimes slowly and sometimes in massive releases such as the North American release into the Atlantic. Again, well within human prehistory. That's the key phrase in my opinion, 'Prehistory'

See, for me when I read about the Library of Alexandria's destruction or of Ancient Chinese rulers burning all literature or later of the Spanish/Church destroying all the Aztec codices I can imagine collaborative information for such prehistoric events lost to humanity for all times.

I'll take a wait and see approach and keep an open mind

SLAYER69
reply to post by Harte

 

A tic of the clock in geological terms...

We cannot deny that locations such as the Red Sea, Black Sea and Persian Gulf were at one time dry land. I won't defend him on his wording but these locations and many others were at one time dry land and well within the time frame of human habitation. Is it such a stretch to postulate that when those locations flooded out that it didn't happen by inches over periods of hundreds or thousands of years alone but may have on occasion happened rapidly? A lurching in the amounts of rises due to these periodic large scale melt off releases?

Why, yes, it is such a stretch.

Obviously floods occurred due to glacial dams. Offhand, in the vicinity of the Near East, the Altai flood comes to mind.

However, there isn't enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth overnight to a thirty foot level, and there exists precisely no evidence whatsoever of such a thing ever occuring. Yet he quips offhandedly about it, as if it were a given.

SLAYER69Science tells us these locations were dry, then Science tells us there were large melt offs sometimes slowly and sometimes in massive releases such as the North American release into the Atlantic. Again, well within human prehistory. That's the key phrase in my opinion, 'Prehistory'

Again, Hancock makes it clear that he's not talking about some big wave - he actually characterizes it as "permanent." That's his choice of wording there.

Why would he do this, do you think?

The only answer is, of course, to sell his books full of fraudulent claims, said claims made (mostly) by his predecessors and merely parroted in his writings.

SLAYER69See, for me when I read about the Library of Alexandria's destruction or of Ancient Chinese rulers burning all literature or later of the Spanish/Church destroying all the Aztec codices I can imagine collaborative information for such prehistoric events lost to humanity for all times.

I'll take a wait and see approach and keep an open mind

Do you have any reason at all to believe there was a single thing in either location pertaining to this that we don't have access to today?
Remember, the Library was built quite recently - obviously after Alexander's conquest.

Harte

Harte
However, there isn't enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth overnight to a thirty foot level, and there exists precisely no evidence whatsoever of such a thing ever occuring. Yet he quips offhandedly about it, as if it were a given. an open mind

Where to begin.

He nor I are saying there was a "flood of the entire Earth overnight to a thirty foot level" Is that all you are getting or focusing on out of everything written or said? The ocean levels were a few hundred feet lower than they are now. A thirty foot rise would not flood 'The entire Earth overnight" but it may have been just high enough to flood out the Red Sea, Black Sea and or the Persian Gulf areas...

Do you have any reason at all to believe there was a single thing in either location pertaining to this that we don't have access to today? Remember, the Library was built quite recently - obviously after Alexander's conquest.

First off, You're going to sit there and deny the very real possibility that those records may have contained information from the distant past? Being fairly recently or not it was no big secret that they held information going way back into antiquity but we will never know just how far back.

Secondly, Are you implying that we know everything that was lost in the previously mentioned destruction? I'd love to see where all those records are backed up and exactly what they held.

SLAYER69

Harte
However, there isn't enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth overnight to a thirty foot level, and there exists precisely no evidence whatsoever of such a thing ever occuring. Yet he quips offhandedly about it, as if it were a given. an open mind

Where to begin.

He nor I are saying there was a "flood of the entire Earth overnight to a thirty foot level" Is that all you are getting or focusing on out of everything written or said? The ocean levels were a few hundred feet lower than they are now. A thirty foot rise would not flood 'The entire Earth overnight" but it may have been just high enough to flood out the Red Sea, Black Sea and or the Persian Gulf areas...

I didn't mean the entire surface, though it sure looks like I did.

I meant to raise the level of the ocean overnight by thirty feet. Which was what Hancock was taking for granted, immediately after stating "in some places" and "practically overnight." It's obvious, isn't it, exactly why he does this - people can walk. Any "flood" that matches the evidence we actually have is far too slow to erase a culture and its artifacts.
No flood from an ice dam is ever gonna do anything even approaching that. Except, as I said, possibly immediately downstream.

SLAYER69

Do you have any reason at all to believe there was a single thing in either location pertaining to this that we don't have access to today? Remember, the Library was built quite recently - obviously after Alexander's conquest.

First off, You're going to sit there and deny the very real possibility that those records may have contained information from the distant past? Being fairly recently or not it was no big secret that they held information going way back into antiquity but we will never know just how far back.

Absolutely. If you look into it, you'll find information on how the Library - built and maintained by Greeks, by the way - amassed it's collections.
Obviously, collections of writer's works were certainly more complete there than they are today. No doubt we've missed out on some good dramas and tragedies, poetry and maybe even some technical achievements. Problem is, we have surviving works of "history" (using the term loosely) that far predate the Library. Why would we expect anything radically different in any library that was, for example, erected 250 years after Herodotus died?
Add to that the fact that older libraries survived into much later times, and I think it's pretty obvious that, while the loss of the Library was an irredeemable tragedy, it's not likely to have been an Earth-shattering loss, nor would it have influenced us much in our thinking had it survived.

SLAYER69Secondly, Are you implying that we know everything that was lost in the previously mentioned destruction? I'd love to see where all those records are backed up and exactly what they held.

We wouldn't know everything even if the Library remained in mint condition to this day.

Byrd once posted here concerning other major libraries of the time (and earlier) that survived. Use the site-specific google search to find her posts on this. You can see what you find out about the other libraries. That is, if you're really curious about the state of intelligensia in that time (and before.)

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Any "flood" that matches the evidence we actually have is far too slow to erase a culture and its artifacts.

But therein lies the caveat, Harte. It's the evidence we have...so far. Archaeology, like every other scientific discipline, changes with the wind. What's thought to be fact today, will tomorrow, be rewritten. Yet, we treat each new peer reviewed paper as the definitive answer, knowing inside it isn't, and can never be. There will always be another piece of evidence that changes the current understanding. I know you know this, but science isn't about definitive answers. It's about probabilities.

Add to that the fact that older libraries survived into much later times, and I think it's pretty obvious that, while the loss of the Library was an irredeemable tragedy, it's not likely to have been an Earth-shattering loss, nor would it have influenced us much in our thinking had it survived.

Can we really afford to be cavalier about the possibilities the right library could open up to us for discovery and learning? If we have any true interest in understanding our past at all?

I'm with you on keeping a moderate mindset, but I'm also for looking at possibilities we haven't considered, and may, or may not, have evidence for yet. If we persistently close our minds to possibilities, just because they don't match our current understanding. We shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly.

Even Einstein said: “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

I always appreciate reading your take on things. I may not have your knowledge and understanding of the current scientific paradigm, concerning ancient history, but I do try my best to maintain a semblance of objectivity.