Was the Azores home to an ancient civilisation?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Irishhaf
IF it truly was a location that had some ancient civilizations my guess, is they are looking at the wrong elevation.

Considering the fairly sudden sea level rise post ice age most ocean-going peoples would be near the water line not the top of a volcano.

Very tired so could just not be finishing the thought.

People wouldn't lose their civilization while migrating inland a few feet per year, which would keep them WELL ahead of any sea level rise due to ice melt.

Harte

Since we "don't know" the exact rates at which the sea levels did rise. We average out the totality of the rise over the period of time from then, till now. Which is a few meters per century. That does not mean that there could of been instances of quicker rises within that date range. IE. When Lake Agassiz in North America drained rapidly into the pacific. It raised sea levels by almost 10ft over the course of days, not years.

The rise you're talking about took a century, not days.

Harte

For our friend (Harte feel free to show where I'm making mistakes since you are the expert in this)

Volume calculations. 163,000 km3 for the lake (assumes it completely drains which didn't actually happen). Sea water volume (currently it would have been slightly less at the time we are talking about) =1,335,000,000km3 that means the water coming in makes up: 0.00012209737 of the volume of the sea. The average depth of the sea is 3.688 kilometers which gives you a rise of .45 meters. This is real fast and probably off but it just shows you have to take into account the vast amount of water already in the seas.

Also, his description of how they were buried under feet of ancient volcanic dust does raise some rather interesting questions about the accepted or hypothesized timeline of the Azores. [/url]

This site gives a good overview of the tectonic plate formation at the Azores, with juicy stuff like trunks in pyroclastic units and a lava tree mold.

My point is you would be able to bring new ways to them that would seem like a large jump in their understanding.

Or demonstrate our stupidity, because to them food is everywhere. dangerous nature as well.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Hanslune
There are cities below the worlds current water line since it rose roughly 400 feet since the last ice age,

No ancient cities have been found submerged by sea level rise.
There are several cities submerged in the ocean though - because not only does sea level rise, but land sinks as well.
One such city sank before eyewitnesses in Jamaica in 1692.

originally posted by: Irishhaf there are several question marks in ice core samples that they dont have a good answer for so to definitively state anything like you did is a failure at critical thinking.

You don't get to criticize for stating beliefs as if they were truths after saying "There are cities below the worlds current water line since it rose roughly 400 feet since the last ice age."
Please tell us more about these anomalous ice cores.

originally posted by: IrishhafPrior to gobekli tepi being dated it was thought to have been impossible,

What was "thought to have been impossible?"
You aren't implying that there was some "advanced" civilization responsible for Gobekli Tepe are you?

originally posted by: Irishhaf the world is big the ocean is deep add in continental drift, the rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters I would wager there is at least 1 civilization in the past that we know nothing about because we havnt looked in the right places to find the evidence. Since people dont want to fund long shots very often and going outside the known paradigm is a longshot to the money people.

I think you use the term "civilization" too loosely here.
In a statement concerning Anthropology, you should consider that the term "civilization" is a classification of a culture.
There are most likely some ancient cultures we don't know about. But civilizations? Probably not.

Harte

Well it seems GH is right in his thoughts on those who do not want to listen or look at other ideas. Some of those structures if not all of them are incredible, how was it done with stone tools and no machinary or lifting gear.

What I would like to hear from you is how you think it was done, then we can have a proper discussion about it.

At the moment its you saying one thing and GH saying another about the same thing, with no proof coming from either side.

All GH is trying to is push the envelope a bit, and have a better discussion about what's in front of our eyes and that without the pre-concieved ideas just because others say so.

a reply to: Dalamax

A cataclysm would have a way of thinning out the stupidity. Those people wouldn’t make it to the Amazon, but of course I’m just using the Amazon as an example of non technology tribes living among us today.

originally posted by: multichild
Well it seems GH is right in his thoughts on those who do not want to listen or look at other ideas. Some of those structures if not all of them are incredible, how was it done with stone tools and no machinary or lifting gear.

They look at his ideas but the problem is that he thinks his opinions are evidence. They are not.

What I would like to hear from you is how you think it was done, then we can have a proper discussion about it.

It has been and those theories not involving aliens, Atlanteans, magic and high technology are dismissed

At the moment its you saying one thing and GH saying another about the same thing, with no proof coming from either side.

There are hundreds of paper putting forth information on how the ancients worked stone
Here are a few - how many from GH? None

digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu...
www.oocities.org...
www.academia.edu...
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/DenysA.Stocks.......experimentsInEgyptia.pdf
etc., etc.

All GH is trying to is push the envelope a bit, and have a better discussion about what's in front of our eyes and that without the pre-concieved ideas just because others say so.

No he is pushing out his constantly evolving new ideas of where the lost civilization is while never providing evidence. His first book put it in Antarctica is last in North America and lots of other places between those - why so many changes? He needs a new idea for each new book.....

Some quotes from GH

"If you want a slavishly “balanced” and objective account of “both sides of the argument” then I’m the wrong author for you!" "So, the way I see it it’s not my job to be “balanced” or “objective”.

In his most recent book he said:

“My speculation, which I will not attempt to prove here or to support with evidence but merely present for consideration, is that the advanced civilization I see evolving in North America during the Ice Age had transcended leverage and mechanical advantage and learned to manipulate matter and energy by deploying powers of consciousness that we have not yet begun to tap.” Graham Hancock, America Before

originally posted by: multichild
Well it seems GH is right in his thoughts on those who do not want to listen or look at other ideas. Some of those structures if not all of them are incredible, how was it done with stone tools and no machinary or lifting gear.

Please realize that "those structures" is too vague.
Please be more precise - which structures do you consider to be the most incredible?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: multichild
Well it seems GH is right in his thoughts on those who do not want to listen or look at other ideas. Some of those structures if not all of them are incredible, how was it done with stone tools and no machinary or lifting gear.

Please realize that "those structures" is too vague.
Please be more precise - which structures do you consider to be the most incredible?

Harte

Well in his first one TV episode (the only one so far I have had the strength to view), he was talking about Gunung Padang, Cholua, Bimini road (yeah beach rocks). Gobekli Tepe, the Native American serpent mound, and the underground cities in Turkey.

I think we are getting off topic here.

The original discussion was the possibility the Azores could have been home to a group of peoples at some time in our past.

The largest sea level rise known by paleo-climatologists as 'Melt-Water Pulse 1A', began precisely 14,650 years ago. The sea level rose 14m world wide, during a period of less than 350 years.

That's 45ft.

Science Daily

I don't see it as far fetched to believe that had the Azores been more exposed than they are now (lower sea level) along with the idea that anyone back then would most likely be living near the shore. That had the sea level rose 45ft over a few hundreds years, it could wash away any proof of a aspiring community that "had" lived there.

I think anyone that immediately discredits the plausibility of that idea displays their disdain for the topic and shows that their egotism and contempt overpowers any idea that someone else might bring to the table.

originally posted by: Triton1128
I think we are getting off topic here.

The original discussion was the possibility the Azores could have been home to a group of peoples at some time in our past.

The largest sea level rise known by paleo-climatologists as 'Melt-Water Pulse 1A', began precisely 14,650 years ago. The sea level rose 14m world wide, during a period of less than 350 years.

That's 45ft.

Science Daily

I don't see it as far fetched to believe that had the Azores been more exposed than they are now (lower sea level) along with the idea that anyone back then would most likely be living near the shore. That had the sea level rose 45ft over a few hundreds years, it could wash away any proof of a aspiring community that "had" lived there.

I think anyone that immediately discredits the plausibility of that idea displays their disdain for the topic and shows that their egotism and contempt overpowers any idea that someone else might bring to the table.

No it wouldn't ancient people nor modern don't just built with a few feet of the ocean and avoid any contact with the higher land behind them. There should be stone tools every where with a concentration of flakes around the city and the pointwhere the stone was obtained - this doesn't exist in the Azores. Additionally, no one builds right at the waters edge - waves are well known. They built farther back and would simply move (as in historic times) back or forward as the water level changes. Additionally wave action will bring things to shore. Like stone tools, pottery, worked stone etc., no such things in the Azores. In 99% of the cases what you find in any area where humans once were are: stone tools, hearths with fire remains, burials. middens, and exploitation of resources, sediments showing changes in the environment due to humans. None of this applies to the Azores.

If you and HG think there are cities there how comes he doesn't fund searches for them with seagoing drones? Because he doesn't care to find any evidence all he needs to make money is for the possibility to exist.

What if the open land behind them was filled with hungry beasties all larger and fiercer then the puny humans. Perhaps the land was more prone to tremors and ground movement to boot, possible solution? live on or by the water.

It’d encourage me to learn how to build sturdy walls resistant to collapse.

a reply to: Hanslune

a reply to: Hanslune

You are seriously taking my post literal to make a point. Obviously people do not live in the waves. Are you ignorant?

I come here open minded, trying to view both and mediate a open discussion. But all I see is naysayers bulling about anyone that has an idea of there own. Its pathetic.

I made the mistake of posting in a thread. I forgot free thought and open discussion has been shat on for the last 7 years here. None of you are qualified to be making claims like you do.

Good luck in your endeavors.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Hanslune

You are seriously taking my post literal to make a point. Obviously people do not live in the waves. Are you ignorant?

I come here open minded, trying to view both and mediate a open discussion. But all I see is naysayers bulling about anyone that has an idea of there own. Its pathetic.

I made the mistake of posting in a thread. I forgot free thought and open discussion has been shat on for the last 7 years here. None of you are qualified to be making claims like you do.

Good luck in your endeavors.

You mean you get upset if any one offers an idea different from yours? You must live in hell then.

There are reasons that the current theory is that the Azores were uninhabited - that evidence - or lack of it is the main drives of that theory.

originally posted by: Dalamax
What if the open land behind them was filled with hungry beasties all larger and fiercer then the puny humans. Perhaps the land was more prone to tremors and ground movement to boot, possible solution? live on or by the water.

It’d encourage me to learn how to build sturdy walls resistant to collapse.

a reply to: Hanslune

Puny humans are smarter, have pointy sticks and cutting blades and hunt in packs, they know how to set traps - we are one of the most dangerous predators that ever existed.

originally posted by: Triton1128
I think we are getting off topic here.

The original discussion was the possibility the Azores could have been home to a group of peoples at some time in our past.

The largest sea level rise known by paleo-climatologists as 'Melt-Water Pulse 1A', began precisely 14,650 years ago. The sea level rose 14m world wide, during a period of less than 350 years.

That's 45ft.


I think anyone that immediately discredits the plausibility of that idea displays their disdain for the topic and shows that their egotism and contempt overpowers any idea that someone else might bring to the table.

Amen, This would coincide with a few other locations flooding out. Hence, many stories of a great flood. Noah comes to mind. Stories handed down generation after generation. One could imagine the stories being inflated. Their whole world as they knew was flooded out. Also, could be a primer as to why many of the most ancient sites show advanced *For the period architecture and urban planning.

They simply had to uproot and move to higher ground and begin again...

@Hanslune

No, I get upset when I realize the person I'm trying to have a rudimentary conversation with, doesn't have the capacity to understand the simplest of idea's..

Living in the past must be super boring. . . .

originally posted by: Triton1128
@Hanslune

No, I get upset when I realize the person I'm trying to have a rudimentary conversation with, doesn't have the capacity to understand the simplest of idea's..

Living in the past must be super boring. . . .

Oh, you must mean Harte, yes he's a bit of an embarrassment but we keep him on due to tradition and Byrd likes him.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

Amen, This would coincide with a few other locations flooding out. Hence, many stories of a great flood. Noah comes to mind. Stories handed down generation after generation. One could imagine the stories being inflated. Their whole world as they knew was flooded out. Also, could be a primer as to why many of the most ancient sites show advanced *For the period architecture and urban planning.

They simply had to uproot and move to higher ground and begin again...

Yep which is what they would do and others in time have also done. The story about folks living along the seashore and being swallowed up was made up by fringe authors to cover up the lack of evidence.

When you make up something one of the premier problems is now to explain why you have no evidence to support your fringe theory. The easiest solution is to say all the evidence was destroyed by x but then you need evidence that x happened. This is why so many lost civilizations are placed in places where no one (without great expense) can easily check on the story - you place the LC in the Antarctic, on an island that sank, on coast lines now submerged, etc. The other dodge is to insist the evidence is there but a multi-generational conspiracy is hiding the evidence - that is contrary to the good interest of those hiding it.

As noted earlier one doesn't see fringe authors and supporters putting up the millions to search the 400 foot line of the coast lines with maritime deep diving drones looking for these cities. Why? They already know they don't exist, so why waste the time and money doing so.

In Science if you have a theory you make a proposal, get money (or do it yourself), go to x or y and do an investigation, excavate, etc. In Fringe you just insist you are right, that the reason you don't have evidence is due to a conspiracy. As long as the possibility of you being right is not bothered you can never be shown to be wrong.

a reply to: Hanslune

Oh, you must mean Harte, yes he's a bit of an embarrassment but we keep him on due to tradition and Byrd likes him.

I laughed at this reply. Thank you