The Anunnaki Gave Ancient Mesopotamian Rulers Advanced Weapons

originally posted by: Sillyolme
No.
We're alone. There are no such things as the anunaki or what ever.
Sorry. People need to grow out of fairy tales not embrace them.

That is a sweeping statement and a rash generalisation.
It's your word against theirs, unfortunately.

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Phage

You have zero idea what you are talking about and the problem is you are too inept to understand that.

The legends of super weapons transcend all cultures even into ancient Cambodia. There are many tales of actual devastating weaponry being used throughout ancient history. Sumeria is but one possible example to use.

Ignoramus.

That is rather harsh to say the least, many people look up to Phage, its easy to see why.

Because he's a God??
My apologies, but Phage is one voice amongst the many, his opinions are as valid as any other on here.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Sure. I'm not sure how to get a picture of something that didn't happen or doesn't exist.
Maybe we can get Santa to bring us a magic camera?

You do realise that modern humans do not know everything, right?
Your apparent arrogance betrays your blinkered attitude.
I'm not in any way suggesting you should change your stance on the subject but for others to accept the possibility of you being correct, you also have to reciprocate.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: Sillyolme

I think you're wrong. I think our species used to be far more advanced than we are now and somehow at some point in time, we lost it all and had to start from scratch.

That makes for a nice story, but there aren't really any hard facts that indicate this.

We have a very good archeological record of humans going back 50 thousand years, with some even going back more than 100 thousand years, and none of that record indicates that civilization was once more advanced.

Granted, archaeologists do find that ancient humans were very clever problem-solvers, and came up with some ingenious technological solutions to problems, but that is not at all surprising because ancient humans were still humans just like us.

They may not have had our technological knowledge we have today, but they were still just as intelligent as us -- and that's because they are us and we are them.

The problem is that the people who taught you your history are proven liars....you personally may spend your life defending what you were taught....it matters not because by proxy everything in your toolbox is tainted and YOU must find a way to remediate your world view.Your teachers cheated....doesnt matter how doesnt matter why doesnt matter when.

There is an overabundance of evidence currently not considered by people whose teachers lied to them showing us that we are constantly rinse and repeating on a global scale in terms of technology and culture.

Please show me the evidence that indicates that our current civilization did not grow slowly over the past 100,000 years -- especially over the past 50,000 years since the advent of agriculture and permanent settlement.

You make it sound as if there is hard evidence that there were civilization MORE advanced that ours 50K years ago. If that is the case, please show me.


...and I'm not talking about an ancient battery in clay pots or an ancient mechanical astronomical calendar/computer or super-smooth and precise stone work. I know those sorts of things existed, but they existed within the generally less technologically advanced civilizations of the past.

Sure (and as I said above) there were clever people back then who had the intelligence to create such things -- because, as I mentioned, they were humans jut like us and had human brains just like us, so they were equally intelligent as us and had the same capacity for being clever. However, these clever humans lived in a civilization that was generally far less technologically advanced as us.

That is to say, they did not have the same accumulation of technological knowledge that we have today. That doesn't mean they were too dumb to figure things out, but they didn't have the wealth of accumulated knowledge to help them figure things out.

originally posted by: Triton1128
The Ruins of Harappa: The Mahabharata clearly describes a catastrophic blast that rocked the continent.

"A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe…An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendor…it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes an entire race.

The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out, pottery broke without any apparent cause, and the birds turned white. After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected. To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves into the river."

The above quote about nuclear fallout is not mentioned in the Mahabharata. The original texts describe something completely different. I did some own research (see related post here) because I found this alleged text passage to be quite intriguing but alas the quote simply isn't there. A confirmation for this can also be found in an older thread here.

Other than that, I do agree with you that in various ancient texts from different cultures we can indeed find very specific descriptions of what we would today describe as advanced technology and aircraft.

My last word on this, as it is rapidly descending into the same old slanging match that usually occurs on these kind of subject matters. The title of the Op should read...

[Did] The Anunnaki Gave [Give] Ancient Mesopotamian Rulers Advanced Weapons [?]

a reply to: jeep3r

Could that description also apply to a meteor impact (or air burst/partial impact) event, maybe with ash ejecta?

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Sitchin did not really have any idea what he was talking about. Do you have any reason to believe him?

Phage, as much as I do appreciate your thoughts and your sensibilities...you omitted the words "In my opinion" at the beginning of your reply.

It's not just his opinion though. Are you really trying to claim that an economist who didn't study Assyriology made more accurate translations of cuneiform than Kramer or von Soden? Just because anyone can download the University of Chicago's 21 volume Assyrian Dictionary (Based heavily on von Soden's work) doesn't mean they are going to give the most accurate translations.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: jeep3r

Could that description also apply to a meteor impact (or air burst/partial impact) event, maybe with ash ejecta?

Good question, I guess it could apply to a lot of things related to war, religion or natural disasters but since I'm not a scholar of ancient Indian literature I'm not familiar with the concepts and metaphors we find in those passages.

An "iron bolt" is mentioned, yes, and lots of destruction as well, but there's definitely not sufficient detail IMO to make the case for the nuclear fallout claim that we find on so many sites without proper source indication.

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: jeep3r

Could that description also apply to a meteor impact (or air burst/partial impact) event, maybe with ash ejecta?

Good question, I guess it could apply to a lot of things related to war, religion or natural disasters but since I'm not a scholar of ancient Indian literature I'm not familiar with the concepts and metaphors we find in those passages.

An "iron bolt" is mentioned, yes, and lots of destruction as well, but there's definitely not sufficient detail IMO to make the case for the nuclear fallout claim that we find on so many sites without proper source indication.

Yes. I agree that translation is the key.

I'm not saying the "ancient nuclear war" theory proponents used a specific translation that would promote their own agenda, but I can't tell if they didn't do that, either.

India continues to fascinate me the more I read into its mythology and legends. Here is another possible example of lost technology recorded in history:

Ancient bridge in the Palk Strait, between India and Sri Lanka

The bridge’s unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge’s age is also almost equivalent.
This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the mysterious legend called Ramayana, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago). In this epic, there is a mentioning about a bridge, which was built between Rameshwaram (India) and Srilankan coast under the supervision of a dynamic and invincible figure called Rama who is supposed to be the incarnation of the supreme.

Here is a link to the video: I have it set to play where it starts to explain the bridge creation process.

Video Link

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All. ... A half-life is the period of time in which it takes one-half of a given amount of a radioactive substance to decay. Radioactive decay happens when a radioactive substance emits a particle.
Source: Forbes

Forgive my 1960's education, but isn't carbon dating what science uses to say how old things are historically?

I would also suggest that the techtonic rate of movement may also not be constant.

Therefore, the dating of ages is open for interpreting . . .

a reply to: Triton1128

What is the source of the information you have quoted? The time period of bridge construction differs greatly between that information in the quote box (that asserts that the bridge is 1.75 Million years old) and the information presented in the video (which says it is 7000 years old).

What's even more confusing about that quoted piece of information is that it said the Ramayana (and Indian epic poem) took place 1,700,000 years ago -- but that is completely wrong. The events in the poem may possibly have taken place 7000 years ago (the year of Rama's birth is not exactly known), but certainly NOT 1,700,000 years ago.

If the information you quoted came from an Indian source, I have a feeling there might have been a translation problem. Or the person who wrote that information was confused, because there are some studies that seem to show that Rama's Bridge may not be man-made, but a geological feature -- a geological feature that is at least 1,700,000 years old.

That might be where the confusion is coming from. The people who claim it is man-made claim it was made 7000 years ago, around the time of events depicted in the Ramayan. The people who claim it is a natural formation think it is at least 1,700,000 years old. NOBODY who claims it was man-made claim it was made 1,700,000 years ago.


If it is man-made, 7000 years old seems reasonable, considering other stone structures can be found dating back to that time (although not on that scale). However They didn't give any good evidence in that video as to why it necessarily was man-made. Granted -- they claim how it could have been constructed by man, but they don't have any archaeological evidence to support that hypothesis.

Also, do you have more information as to why they think the curvature of the bridge means it is man made? I didn't quite understand why "curvature" means "man-made". They seemed to have just stated it as a fact without giving any supporting reason for it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: Sillyolme

I think you're wrong. I think our species used to be far more advanced than we are now and somehow at some point in time, we lost it all and had to start from scratch.

That makes for a nice story, but there aren't really any hard facts that indicate this.

We have a very good archeological record of humans going back 50 thousand years, with some even going back more than 100 thousand years, and none of that record indicates that civilization was once more advanced.

Granted, archaeologists do find that ancient humans were very clever problem-solvers, and came up with some ingenious technological solutions to problems, but that is not at all surprising because ancient humans were still humans just like us.

They may not have had our technological knowledge we have today, but they were still just as intelligent as us -- and that's because they are us and we are them.

The problem is that the people who taught you your history are proven liars....you personally may spend your life defending what you were taught....it matters not because by proxy everything in your toolbox is tainted and YOU must find a way to remediate your world view.Your teachers cheated....doesnt matter how doesnt matter why doesnt matter when.

There is an overabundance of evidence currently not considered by people whose teachers lied to them showing us that we are constantly rinse and repeating on a global scale in terms of technology and culture.

Please show me the evidence that indicates that our current civilization did not grow slowly over the past 100,000 years -- especially over the past 50,000 years since the advent of agriculture and permanent settlement.

You make it sound as if there is hard evidence that there were civilization MORE advanced that ours 50K years ago. If that is the case, please show me.


...and I'm not talking about an ancient battery in clay pots or an ancient mechanical astronomical calendar/computer or super-smooth and precise stone work. I know those sorts of things existed, but they existed within the generally less technologically advanced civilizations of the past.

Sure (and as I said above) there were clever people back then who had the intelligence to create such things -- because, as I mentioned, they were humans jut like us and had human brains just like us, so they were equally intelligent as us and had the same capacity for being clever. However, these clever humans lived in a civilization that was generally far less technologically advanced as us.

That is to say, they did not have the same accumulation of technological knowledge that we have today. That doesn't mean they were too dumb to figure things out, but they didn't have the wealth of accumulated knowledge to help them figure things out.

"generally far less technologiclly advanced than us".......lol......there are around 7 billion people on earth ....how many do you think never own or use an Iphone or computer or the bulk of todays technology before they die????

MOST of us are not very advanced at all.

Today we are in the same boat.....a small % of humans have and enjoy the bulk of the technology....a smaller breakaway society controls the spoiled few who benefit most........some of the same group which survived last cataclysm form todays smallest most powerful global influence core.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All. ... A half-life is the period of time in which it takes one-half of a given amount of a radioactive substance to decay. Radioactive decay happens when a radioactive substance emits a particle.
Source: Forbes

Forgive my 1960's education, but isn't carbon dating what science uses to say how old things are historically?

I would also suggest that the techtonic rate of movement may also not be constant.

Therefore, the dating of ages is open for interpreting . . .

Carbon dating only measures the decay rate of Carbon 14 (14C). Radiometric dating is the umbrella term for all forms of dating by measuring nuclear decay rates. There are many different types of radiometric dating using many different isotopes from strontium and thorium to Uranium and on and on.

The article you cited is certainly interesting but it was only one study and nobody else has been able to reproduce those results in the last 7 or 8 years since the original study was done. There's actually a lot of data that the study you reference was not accurate though.

blog.drwile.com...


This includes recent data from this past June- blog.drwile.com...

I realize it's a blog, but the info ian solid and all of the pertinent citations are linked there as well as many other links with more data indicating that the Sun isn't actually affecting radiometric decay rates. And even IF the sun were causing an affect in decay rates, that affect is able to be calculated and accounted for in the margin of error.

If you read through your own citation, it details the presumed effects of solar neutrinos on decay rates. This is easily accounted for and able to be accounted for, were it accurate. Which the effect doe not seek to actually exist so...

nonetheless, it doesn't mean that radiometric dating isn't accurate and that all of our dates are completely faulty. The bottom line is that radiometric dating is never the sole providence of any ascribed dates. And we can easily test the efficacy of various dating methods through cross referencing them with other dating techniques like ice core samples and dendrochronology.

And the dates always come back within the margin of error when cross referenced. If the efficacy of the methodology is false, how then would the dates still match up with
Other techniques?

a reply to: one4all


That was a really long winded way of admitting that you have nothing to support your claims. Well played with the deflection.

Ok....put it this way.....I do not know anything about dating things....I dont need to know.....I simply know we have all been lied to on many levels in many ways in every single keystone field of study and endeavour humanity has built.

So to me all bets are off and everything imaginable is on the table for inclusion in discussion.

My first gut-check is to snap the cojones of anyone who comes out waving a degree or spouting off about the requirement for per approval process based status quo driven proof.By proxy of the lies taught to us ALL degrees of higher learning are permanently tainted as are the disciples who consider themselves to be learned.

I dont know if one type of dating is better than another.......I do know our global civilisations are wiped every 3657 years....this is genericlly proven out to me by the GCDW model ..... irrespective of exact age oil is NOT millions of years old it is somewhere between tens and thousands.

I am holding a piece of fossillzed flesh...a shard actually....in my hand as I stop typeing.....it is identical visually to a shard of meat one would produce today....every grain in the flesh every bit of fat and sinew.......perfect......I found it beside a small piece of MACHINED QUARTZ.....besides other things like pieces of metal slag ....about 280 feet below grade......I do not care what conventional academia has to say in most cases....they are tainted....they are a secondary resource.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah, I do understand the article was worded inconclusively, yet it gives precedent to questioning the accuracy of radiological dating.

That article is not the first time I have heard it said within physics that radioactive decay is not neccessarily a universal constant. I don't know the details nor the science.

My own reason for leaning towards a non-constant in radioactive decay is a phenomenon I have been studying.

A few years ago, it was drawn to my attention while studying clairvoyantly the Trinity test site and the Trinity Anniversary Documentary (trinity and beyond website.

There is a spontaneous generation of a very simple akasha (life force) critter when an atom bomb goes off. I suspect they feed off something in the radioactivity. They just grow in place and get bigger.

They can be herded towards food.

If they do indeed eat something in the sub atomic level, it could affect the rate of decay.

The only way to test the theory was to herd them from Nagasaki and Hiroshima towards Fukushima and then see what happens.

Dunno if the Japanese scientist community would say anything if they found an anomaly in the rate of decay at Fukushima. Wouldn't be important, but you never know.

originally posted by: Triton1128
India continues to fascinate me the more I read into its mythology and legends. Here is another possible example of lost technology recorded in history:

Ancient bridge in the Palk Strait, between India and Sri Lanka

The bridge’s unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge’s age is also almost equivalent.
This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the mysterious legend called Ramayana, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago). In this epic, there is a mentioning about a bridge, which was built between Rameshwaram (India) and Srilankan coast under the supervision of a dynamic and invincible figure called Rama who is supposed to be the incarnation of the supreme.

Here is a link to the video: I have it set to play where it starts to explain the bridge creation process.

Video Link

I am also impressed by the ancient India writings. I read quite a bit of the translations, but still less than maybe three percent of what exists. I would bet that China has a lot of old literature in their treasures too, but since we are different kind of societies, we do not accept much of what they are telling us about it.

Both India and China have some impressive medical writings, although I have a hard time comprehending it because it is different. When researching the medical stuff from those countries I found that medicine here uses similar pharmacutical chemistry to treat people, it is just changed a tad to make it patentable. Pharma has researched a very lot of old natural medicines and writings to design their drugs.

I read enough of the ancient India translations to know not to count it all as myth and religious crap. There is real information in a lot of it, but we do not know how to comprehend what is being said very well, we are conditioned to believe only recent generations are intelligent. That is far from the truth, their ways were different than our ways so it was hard to translate what was trying to be said. It is not all fantasy, you have to look through the eyes of what common people of the time saw and try to understand why they wrote what they did. That is not real easy to do.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

OP. the weapon of brilliance sounds liek a High intensity strobe light wore on the head to daze and blind attackers who looked at it.

As to ATlantic and previous cities. We are the fifth iteration of humans on this planet. The last ones left the solar system taking their tech and traces of civilization with them.Impossible to do? Not if you are advanced enough.

People may scoff at this but what if we have been told our true origins by science fiction already in the form of a science fiction show. Battlestar galactica(the new one) gave a great theory on this..Or was it a truth within a lie to throw people off? The ones in control in the shadows were prolly sitting there laughing at the rest of us because they think we have been fooled into thinking it was all made up.

Would it surprise anyone if there were aliens like in Babylon 5 pulling the strings of lower races to evolve them?