It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Got it. Thank you. Sadly, this map has no information concerning the areas in question.
this topographic map ... shows an ancient intermittent roadway near ... Aoudaghost
originally posted by: Hooke
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Got it. Thank you. Sadly, this map has no information concerning the areas in question.
What Byrd actually said was:
this topographic map ... shows an ancient intermittent roadway near ... Aoudaghost
(Wiki on Aoudaghost).
This mediaeval town seems to be about 15 mi. north of Tamchekket: so presumably the intermittent roadway is somewhere nearby ...
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages. But, no roads, no road sections, or even heavily traveled game trails. There are modern vehicle tracks in many areas but do not follow any established course. There is nothing here to compare the road sections I have noted earlier in other areas. I'm wondering what information the author of the map used to establish these routs.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
A very unique building design is showing up in multiple locations. Nick Name: "Pie Fort"
The conclusions can be argued anything from jokers going around the desert and planting false evidence, or, these structures are evidence of a lost society, civilization. But to ignore it, does not make it go away.
The Romans, as far as I know, did not operate this far south. Again, history books are silent.
originally posted by: Hooke
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages. But, no roads, no road sections, or even heavily traveled game trails. There are modern vehicle tracks in many areas but do not follow any established course. There is nothing here to compare the road sections I have noted earlier in other areas. I'm wondering what information the author of the map used to establish these routs.
Right: after another look at Byrd's map (part of an OziExplorer series available in 2005), I see that Aoudaghost is the grey splodge northeast of Tamchekket.
I suspect (but could be wrong) that the "ancient intermittent roadway" might possibly be the broken trackway leading from El Mabroûk (beneath Aoudaghost) all the way to Tamchekket; it's marked "Tracé incertain." I couldn't see anything on Google Maps.
originally posted by: AndyMayhew
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages.
How can you determine age from a satellite photo? You can't. This is all just wishful thinking.
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
A very unique building design is showing up in multiple locations. Nick Name: "Pie Fort"
The conclusions can be argued anything from jokers going around the desert and planting false evidence, or, these structures are evidence of a lost society, civilization. But to ignore it, does not make it go away.
The Romans, as far as I know, did not operate this far south. Again, history books are silent.
(sigh) I discussed this many pages ago. Even linked to pictures showing what they were. They ARE forts and from the 1700's (if memory serves. I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now, but perhaps someone else will go hunting them.)
You can't think "out of the box" until you know the actual size and scope of the box. You can't play with aerial identification until you know how to identify common cultural and geographical features in a specific geographic area. Your labeling of everything you don't recognize as "ancient" and possibly proof of a "cover up" simply doesn't hold any water and your accuracy score is not something that would recommend your services as a satellite observer.
I discussed this many pages ago. Even linked to pictures showing what they were. They ARE forts and from the 1700's (if memory serves. I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now, but perhaps someone else will go hunting them.)
You can't think "out of the box" until you know the actual size and scope of the box
and your accuracy score is not something that would recommend your services as a satellite observer.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I also am concerned about your health. Are you posting from a hospital bed? If so, stop and heal.
And as I stated some pages ago, put your research on the table.
Well spoken, from inside the "box".
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Actually, there are ways to tell how old something might be. Or, at least put you in the ball park.
Take for instance the "Boat Dock' at Ouadane.
One might argue its some sort of Religious Alter, but when you factor in the ruins on top of what once was a Island just up steam it becomes evident the age of the site has been misidentified.
We just showed you photos and other evidence that your idea is not correct.
So you agreed that your identification was wrong, then you changed your position as if you decided that these identifications (which contradicted your first ideas) were suddenly wrong and you were right.
And yet we pointed to multiple diverse sources showing that our information was correct.
Now... either there's some sort of huge conspiracy that involves almost everyone in the world except for yourself (for no real reason other than perhaps you exist in a Matrix and we're all just programmed nuisances and the universe revolves around you)-- or your idea is not correct and you've misidentified many things.
And God spake all these words, saying, 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
There are more things IN heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It's not an altar.
originally posted by: Harte
Antlantis Has Been Discovered!!!!
Harte
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Your source (1) was not accepted by me because the evidence on the ground does not support what he has written. It was not diverse, and it did not cover the areas in question. Besides, I can not accept his monetary backing, and not credible.
On top of all that you continually refuse to accept that their are structures, IN THE SECOND RING OF THE EYE. I have produced images documenting the discovery. Your (We) position is to simply look the other way, ignore.
Wake up call to those on the verge of "Waking Up. Plato did a lot of talking about those "Ancient gods". He spoke of them as being a reality, but admitting mankind knew little of them.
The Bible itself tells you the truth in the following passage. Exodus 20:3
And God spake all these words, saying, 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Why did this "Lord God" feel it necessary to warn mankind of the "other" gods? "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them".
This passage confirms what Plato told us, there are other gods who ruled the earth. The passage also betrays the locations of these 'gods'. This passage is the creation of the Matrix of Lies. For where are the bases for these "Alien gods" being located? D.U.M.B. and deep in the oceans.
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
originally posted by: Harte
Antlantis Has Been Discovered!!!!
Harte
Harte, I have got to give you credit, it does bring out certain mindsets at play. Concealment, organization, and purpose. Those stupid humans wanting to know how things work lol
Not exactly the ringed city, but close enough lol lol
You get a star
originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
... Exodus 20:3
... This passage is the creation of the Matrix of Lies.
...
Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive