Earths Forbidden Secrets

That info on map is real I checked it out from different source, the scientist made fun of one of the maps because it showed two land mass under antactic, they weren't laughing after they did a radar image and found two land mass under the ice.

I don't belive every last one of these stories in the book, books two books, but you have to give credit to some. The ones that are she said, he said, and no telling where is today are some what less creditable.

Originally posted by DARKJEDIG
This is ridiculous....Before anyone starts to believe any of this, please question the credibility of a man who presents an ancient Antarctic map that is actually a map of the UK and a little bit of France! Just look at Page 26 Fig 4.
It is clearly an old map of the UK/Ireland and france below...
Jedi

Really? Let's see..

UK map:


Antarctic map:


Hypothetical antarctic map with no ice:
www.globalwarmingart.com...

Are you sure??

Plus, look at this:
www.nasca.org.uk...

This is an interesting collection. Most, I've heard of but some are new. Some are explainable. The spark plug in the geode has been confirmed to be a 1930"s champion plug in mudstone. Some of the other stuff is questionable, too, as often happens with collections of things like this. Other things are not explainable; the Dogon knowledge of Sirius, The Aztec stones, and the Tibetan space visitors seem to be really unexplainable.
The Antikythera mechanism has been examined and a working model has been made. It is an ancient astronomical calculator of good accuracy, showing positions of planets, phases of the moon, eclipses, and other info important to celestial navigation. This one can't be avoided by the established historians, so they must now conclude that the Greek civilization could cut brass gears and use their well known knowledge of the round earth and astronomy for practical purposes.

reply to post by vasaga



Yah

I think it looks too remarkably like the UK. Sorry.




Look at the left hand side of england how it protrudes out. I mean, Its a pretty decent resemblence for a map from the 16th century...

I could be wrong, but the similarities are striking.


[edit on 14-12-2008 by DARKJEDIG]

This is an amazing find. Thank you very much.

This is a good book, but with one HUGE problem.


It falls prey to the same illusion that many contemporaries do. That illusion is to ascribe socially utopian qualities to acnient peoples.


It's like the myth that Native Americans were "green" or "Environmentally friendly". A great book on this specific subject is "Killing the White Mans Indian".


I like the research in this book, however, to fall prey to the common concept that people in the past were "better" in some way or another than today. When in reality you will find the same human-centric issues plaguing all generations.

DUPE

[edit on 14-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

I have to agree with DARKJEDIG on that map being of the UK as opposed to Antarctica. Looking at the Franco Rosselli map in regards to its depiction of Antarctica, it looks nothing like Igan has proposed.
Maybe it is an editorial mistake?

Now this book says "Part One" I wonder where part two is and how much it will cost

Am continuing reading ...

Franco Rosselli map

This seems to be the actual map.

Another issue with this book is this type of thinking.


In the following passage you get a quote from that nut Zacharia Sitchin. This quote is based on so many fallacies.

The question was posed by scholar Zechariah Sitchin in this manner: “If life indeed began through a series of spontaneous and random chemical events as evolution and science has so far surmised then why is it that all life on Earth stems from a single source and not from a myriad of
different sources that were each arrived at by chance? And most importantly why does life on Earth contain so few of the chemical elements that can be found in abundance on the Earth yet so
many others that are in fact, celestial elements, and rare to our planet? Could it be possible that the seed of life did not actually evolve on the Earth but in fact came here from somewhere else?”

Any statement that comes to the conclusion that life couldn't have come to be through spontaneous and random checmical events, based on the concentration of those checmicals today is pretty much superstition.


It's tantamount to saying "There must be an intelligence behind life... it couldn't have formed naturally!".

Many people believe this for the same reason many people believe in God, basic superstitions which form where there is a lack of actual information.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

It's a really good read but at the same time there is some questionable assumptions being made.

I haven't finished reading it but for example the talk about oh this has been dated to this age etc. kinds of pops up flags to me reason being time and time again we see how some of these dating processes turn out completely wrong.

With that assumption in mind some of these things could turn out to be not near as old and for whatever reason just appear to be that old. This in itself often renders what he's talking about moot. Not everything but a lot of things like the show print on top of a trilobite that is fossilized.

Here is another stupid postulate...

"How Could Ancient peoples move 8 ton blocks of stone?"


Just because the author can't figure out how, then it must be suspect and be linked to other intelligences....

Bah.... I wish someone could simply do research like this without coming to lame conclusions. Just put out the research and stop formulating asinine conclusions.

If you really wanted to deny ignorance, the author wouldn't fee compelled to draw the conclusions for the reader.

reply to post by googolplex



Thanks for suggesting the Codex link. Very interesting and sickening. I have been aware of some of this but there is a lot more information here.

I was particularly interested in the suggestion that a hidden purpose for our presence in Iraq was to find and/or destroy any remaining artifacts that might change our view of ancient history.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
This is a good book, but with one HUGE problem.


It falls prey to the same illusion that many contemporaries do. That illusion is to ascribe socially utopian qualities to acnient peoples.


It's like the myth that Native Americans were "green" or "Environmentally friendly". A great book on this specific subject is "Killing the White Mans Indian".

Exactly.

Ancient man was no better at dealing with the issues that modern man deals with there was never a utopian era in mankinds past.

A good example is the theory as to why ancient cultures went the way of the 8 track tape player.

All across the globe if you dig deep enough you'll find polution all be it not like modern polution but polution none the less.

Some think that was a major contributing factor as to why cultures like the Olmec and other early civilations fell, they used up their surrounding resources.

and then moved on.

S&F!

I think this book may provide many answers/new ideas for many. It is another piece of evidence that will one day hopefully be taught to the future generations so we never fall back into this current mind numbing paradox!
Thanks again.

Another thing that strikes me is that the author, through all of his/her research has failed to fall upon the concepts of Emergence.


When you study Emergence, you begin to learn how simple elements which follow basic rules, create larger systems which appear intelligent.


Emergence accurately describes the process of development which has happened not only on our planet, but also in our Universe.

I recommend Emergence, the connected lives of cities, ants, software and brains

If only the author wasn't attempting to prove an hypothesis but was actually doing research.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I don't consider Sitchen a "nut" but I admit when I here his name referenced it does raise flags. I would like to see references to S. N. Kramer as well as some acknowledgement of the areas of Sitchen's work that has been debunked. Otherwise, if I am going to read, it is necessary to question and research every claim independently. Course, we should all be doing this anyway.

Originally posted by george_gaz
I have to agree with DARKJEDIG on that map being of the UK as opposed to Antarctica. Looking at the Franco Rosselli map in regards to its depiction of Antarctica, it looks nothing like Igan has proposed.
Maybe it is an editorial mistake?

Now this book says "Part One" I wonder where part two is and how much it will cost

Am continuing reading ...

Yeh!, i had the same question (where is part 2?) so i looked a little on the site but i just only found a Part 2 Preview.
Part.2 Preview

good find S+F

will be reading it tonight

Any statement that comes to the conclusion that life couldn't have come to be through spontaneous and random checmical events, based on the concentration of those checmicals today is pretty much superstition.

could you provide an example of intelligent life which has been observed as forming through spontaneous and random chemical events. I am not talking about microbes or crayfish intelligence from volcanic vents on the ocean floor here...you know "intelligent life"...to put our pesky superstitions to rest.

Just because the author can't figure out how, then it must be suspect and be linked to other intelligences....

Bah.... I wish someone could simply do research like this without coming to lame conclusions. Just put out the research and stop formulating asinine conclusions.

I totally agree we should stop being fed asinine conclusions. The history books and current mainstream science really need to do some real research instead of trying to maintain the status quo concerning ancient technology

there is so much evidence tucked under the rug of the gatekeepers, yet we are left to believe a bunch of slaves rolled these massive blocks on logs

I am not saying aliens did it but c'mon