Civilization on this Planet

Originally posted by golemina

Ah Snafu... He... she... whats the diff? The Byrd is 'old-fashioned' (hey, I'm being kind

)... more like straightjacketed by the constraints of conventional thought.

But has repeatedly demonstrated a huge widthXbreath of knowledge... I'm just putting forth an opinion... It doesn't hurt to be kind.

Hey... Its your thread.

well, i was trying quite hard to be respectful and get my point across. if i was too harsh, i do apologize.

Originally posted by Long Lance

cherry picking again, aren't we?

either, this is all fake, or somebody is dreadfully wrong.

while i appreciate the addition lance, as i told byrd i was hoping to shy away from a discussion of the validity of these anomolous objects....which is why i didnt present any of them by name in my original post. there are many many threads out there that debate their validity, and most of them usually end up as one person's opinion vs another (rather heatedly), which would detract from the discussion of the possibilities i have layed out in the thread.

thanks again.

Nice find lance, i red something like this but coming from china tho, ill try a link soon.

After thinking about all this i realize that its probly not outdated but probly have something to do with Atlantis. I dont know why but i think history is shaped to avoid Atlantis subject. Alot of dot connect to this place and its starting by the way how ancient civs had some uber skills on certain field of study.
The second point id like to talk about is how math could be useful on this topic id like someone to show how you multiply and or divise in roman numerals.
And finaly third im still waiting for any argument from you Marduk, since your 1st post you attack with wind or with your sandcastle type of thinking )

Essan, Up to your usual tricks I see, you criticise others but do not provide any proofs do you. There's plenty of evidence of past civilisations but people such as yourself just deny it and follow the party line. There have been many artifacts that have been found only to be disregarded by those people you seem to love and trust so much.

well you choose to pick on Atlantis but the source (plato) on that says that it was of an ancient greek style technology (contemporary 500bce information)
the only other sources on it are Madame Blavatsky writing around the 1900s (channeled through ascended tibetan masters) - atlantis had high technology including artillery and zeppelins (contemporary 1900s information)
and
Edgar Cayce writing around the 1940s -1950s channeled while he was asleep - Atlantis had high technology including nuclear weapons and laser technology (contemporary 1950s information)

considering that these last two examples wouldn't have even heard of Atlantis and Cayce although he claimed he'd never read Blavatskys work (a lie or he had a really bad memory as he was working in a bookshop when her book was released) clearly added to the alleged facts that she had presented

so heres the question
1. seeing as they all put the destruction of Atlantis at 9500bce why is there no trace of Atlantean mtdna from that period at all see map.
i11.photobucket.com...
data from national geographic
www3.nationalgeographic.com...
as you can see the mtdna of all the current groups on earth have been traced
and seeing as there is no evidence of advanced atlantean technology ever discovered since
2.what makes you always think that Atlantis is the answer to anything?
3. can anyone explain to me how it is that Plato named Atlantis after Atlas when the god Atlas didn't exist til after 1500bce as it is a name in the greek language only

I'd like you to answer these 3 questions without resorting to UFO websites or Crystal links if at all possible



some things to remember while you're doing it
1) that map is protected under my copyright so no copying it for your own personal files please without express permission from me by u2u
2) I already know the answer to these questions and orthodoxy doesn't know these answers
3) I won't tell you what they are unless you get them within 50% of correct

seeing as you all seem to think that the truth has been hidden from you, lets see if you actually know what it is shall we

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Byrd
Never before. And proveably so.

ok, then please prove it....beyond the shadow of a doubt i mean, in a way in which there are no "missing links" to account for.

In the first place, civilizations leave traces. Large populations require food to be grown and manufactured. This requires farming and/or mining and/or fishing and all of those activities change the area. Chemical composition of farmed soil (even if it's just dug up, turned over, and a fish stuck in the ground to make the corn grow better) is different than that of natural soil. Places where roads have been and building have been feature compacted soil because heavy objects have been placed on them for hundreds or thousands of years.

They trade with each other (moving quantities of raw materials) and artifacts along roads (including waterways) and receiving areas (landing strips, roads, docks) are built in the destination city to accomodate this. They throw things away and so we get rubbish heaps and garbage dumps where the history of the area can be seen (and technological progress can be seen.)

People also tend to favor certain places to live because of the climate (almost nobody, for example, lived in Death Valley after it stopped raining there.)

And because we're social animals and like the familiar, when disasters happen and our homes are destroyed (think Katrina), then we rebuild in the same location.

So... IF the "multiple cycles" theory was true, we'd know about it because we'd find very old city sites (like say, Troy or Ur or Athens) where we had many layers... the pottery and rubbish starting out primitive, moving to a very sophisticated level, then a layer of dirt and rubble (war and abandonment and collapse) and then primitive pottery starting again and moving up through the technological development to bronze and iron and onward.

What are we given for evidence of these "multiple cycles"? The only "evidence" I've seen is the occasional "mysterious object" or "mysterious stone writings" (I have quite a rant about that since I study rock art) that show up one day and are claimed to be of great age or signs of unusual things. The finding is dated by a Mysterious Professor at a Prominent University (one who usually doesn't show up if you research the thing) and the artifact Mysteriously Disappears.

So... my evidence is the tons (and I do mean tons) and tons and tons of artifacts in museums all around the world, including the writings of those civilizations and the products of their techology. They all comes from well researched sites and were carefully taken out of the ground in layers and labeled.

What's your evidence for cyclic civilizations -- evidence that would stand up before a jury of skeptics (say, a metal fabricated engine (like a car engine) with hoses and so forth or manufactured insulation material found buried 10 feet under the first layer of the City of Troy (Troy 1)?

Actually, the ice shields covered the Earth only to about the level of Chicago. Now, I consider Chicago uninhabitable, but others disagre. This is a proveable limit to the glaciers... they leave a lot of traces.

first, i said "much of the most livable parts of the world." second, you forget to mention that they included all of canada, all of new england including most of new york state...not to mention the majority of northern europe. lets be fair here byrd, that's a pretty sizable chunk of the world's population centers. and of course, we could go into the theories of continental shifts and polar reversals, in which frozen lands would have been warm, and vice versa.

Uhm... "covered to the level of Chicago" means they also covered Canada and Northern Europe and Siberia, etc as well as the Southern hemisphere, too"... unless you think I have no idea where Canada is. Trust me... I can pick it out correctly, five times out of six.

And if you have solid (geologic) evidence on polar reversals, do present it.

Could you cite some references and show how they're determined to be anomalous?

i clearly state "and again, as i have no proof, i am simply putting it forth as MHO." so why exactly would you attack this particular point?

Ah. Okay. The "IMHO" stuff goes in Skunk Works. We try to keep the main topics for discussing news/books/reviews/etc and I thought you were working off some articles.

Soooo... theories it is... and I'm shifting this to Skunk Works. (for the record, I don't participate in Skunk Works and I'm not sure that many skeptics do, so you are free to theorize in positive directions without wet blankets hopping all over you.)

I don't think that there were other civilizations that reached our technological level and that disappeared, bringing humans back to the stone age.

One reason is the lack of objects from those civilizations. If a civilizations can make nearly indestructible materials, like we can, things make with those materials should have been found, if not in our days, at least in the first days of our civilizations, and we do not have any source that shows us that they had found them.

Another reason, and I think the most strong reason, even if we loose our technology we do not loose the result of our evolution, even if we are forced to use only stone to make our weapons and tools, we do go back to be Neanderthals.

Originally posted by Byrd
Soooo... theories it is... and I'm shifting this to Skunk Works. (for the record, I don't participate in Skunk Works and I'm not sure that many skeptics do, so you are free to theorize in positive directions without wet blankets hopping all over you.)

i have no problem with it being moved to skunkworks, as i almost posted it there to begin with. however, i do have two small concerns:

1. your decision to attempt a debunk before you did so (kind of contradictory to the whole concept of skunkworks).

2. youre not a moderator of the "civilizations" forum. interesting that you should take it upon yourself to move it from said forum, considering that i started the thread with the phrase "simply MHO", and only in response to my post to you is it decided that it belongs in skunkworks....four pages later.

so it seems we have one of two things happening here: either a) you didnt read the whole thread before posting your initial reply to it or b) you moved it due to your personal disagreement with the theories involved. either way, im disappointed in these actions from a mod who usually has a pretty level head and clear train of thought.

well, now that we've been moved to the skunk works, i guess we can talk about some of the anomolous artifacts that i mentioned with impunity.

lets start with the piri reis map.

The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed.

well, i wouldnt say it was perfectly detailed, but it is pretty fantastic that you could have a map which includes antarctica three hundred years before the continent was discovered, and four hundred years before the land mass below the ice could be accurately mapped. now, the arguments of the debunkers always seem to be that it could be south america as well as antarctica. not according to the united states air force:

Dear Professor Hapgood,
Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.
The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.
The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.
This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.
The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.
We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

so how exactly did this turkish admiral come up with a map that shows the outline of antarctica with no ice on it when it has, according to mainstream science, been covered with ice for more than 6000 years? there has to be a gap in our historical record for something like this to exist.


[edit on 22-11-2006 by snafu7700]

Too bad about the move. I really like arguing with the Byrd... I disagree with the implied perceptions/reality frameworks communicated in those posts... But the Byrd does a credible job meticulously constructing those arguments. (When did I become such a suckup? )

I don't normally participate in that forum either... But I really like the perspective employed when Snafu originally started the thread.

I've got to tell you that many of you have an exaggerated idea of what you perceive as the permanence that is our civilization.

If some event was to send us back to the proverbial stone ages... The artifacts which are our society would disappear much faster than you seem to think. Nature is supremely capable of reclaiming its raw materials.

It's not just the four primal elements. It's the biology... We THINK we have an understanding...

All we really have is a limited exposure to what the biological layer is TRULY capable of.

The flip side to the coin is what makes you think that the artifacts of 'civilization' would by necessity emulate our current development path.

There are MANY MANY scenarios that a highly advanced civilization would NOT employ the type of artifacts/technology that we seem to currently.

That is setiesque type thinking at its absolute worse.

(The details behind the SETI efforts to capture 'alien signals' and the narrowness of the bands that are actually 'searched' is totally shocking at exactly how incomplete/incompetent they are... Not to mention EXACTLY HOW STUPID SOME OF OUR TOP 'SCIENTISTS' happen to be. )

It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence.

Think about that.

Originally posted by golemina

That is setiesque type thinking at its absolute worse.

(The details behind the SETI efforts to capture 'alien signals' and the narrowness of the bands that are actually 'searched' is totally shocking at exactly how incomplete/incompetent they are... Not to mention EXACTLY HOW STUPID SOME OF OUR TOP 'SCIENTISTS' happen to be.

)

It takes intelligence to recognize intelligence.

Think about that.

ahhh, now i undertand. i was wondering what you meant by "setiesque" when you used that term the first time.....makes perfect sense now.

WOW snafu! GREAT thread!

What a rollicking good read everyone. Thank you, thank you.



I especially liked the bit about soldiers being promoted for having big dicks.

Makes sense to me.

Nothing like honesty in politics!



And golemina's line about Byrd being straight-jacketed by conventional thought. ...Well, maybe it wasn't so clever, but I really really enjoyed reading that.

Now, about Byrd being a guy. I honestly don't think so. No self-respecting educated woman would say humankind's evolution was all progress.



It actually astounds me that anyone would make that claim. But an intelligent woman? Never!

Now, about your fear snafu, that humankind has gone this way before - at least to the extent of reaching some kind of apex only to fall as a result of hubris, and greed, or maybe stupidity and arrogance.

No doubt about it, imo. The signs are everywhere. Also, I had several visions about it during a near death experience. Really. The ancients came to me and started dumping all this overwhelming information into my head, way too much of it. So I yelled, "STOP! Just tell me the stories. I can't understand the abstract." So they did. And you know what? It's true. Humanity has risen and fallen several times. Sometimes the falls were our own fault, sometimes they resulted from cataclysms. But the real problem is hubris - the pride that says we are the top-of-the-line and best-ever pretty much guarantees decline. So the ancients teach humility, and leave their messages as they can. Some hear, some don't. And the wheel turns.



.

well, now that we are here in SW and it cant be debunked by closed-minded people, i would consider it an honor if you would describe the stories that were shared with you by these ancients.

Snafu, the North and South poles have a magnectic footprint, previous polar locations can be found by finding this footprint which would indicate that polar shifts have taken place..

Such polar shifts would completly obliterate any existing civilisation, past civilisations cound be under deserts, lava, flows, mountains, thousands of meters of sea and sediment or miles of ice. Who's goining to look for them, Archeologists only dig up what they want to and then they control the info flow. If they want the evidence their going to have to look much deeper than just a few meters below their feet.

I've read stories of jewelry found in lumps of coal how true it is or not I dont know but there are plenty of similar artifacts and stories of such finds. Also Monserat that was inhabited is now being buried under the active Volcano, eventually there will be no trace of any human existance and in thousands of years to come who would know the island was ever inhabited. Modern mans history burried under millions of tons of rock and lava.

Originally posted by snafu7700

while i appreciate the addition lance, as i told byrd i was hoping to shy away from a discussion of the validity of these anomolous objects....which is why i didnt present any of them by name in my original post. there are many many threads out there that debate their validity, and most of them usually end up as one person's opinion vs another...

i suspected you knew about these (alledged) objects, it's kind of inevitable on this forum, but i chose to include them, because this stuff belongs here, just like perfectly matching yet irregular blocks of rock the mayans used to build walls. i'm certain current tech would struggle to copy even a few yards. too bad a casual search yielded no satisfactory result...

Originally posted by eagle eye
Nice find lance, i red something like this but coming from china tho, ill try a link soon.

tbh, it's fairly well known around here, the problem is that some of these items can't possibly be refuted so flame wars start between the orthodoxy and everyone who doesn't reach cover in time, so people tend to, errr, apply self-censorship, which i consider a bad thing. these artefacts belong here, if some lurker views this thread s/he might be interested.

PS: did you refer to the Dropa Stones?

yeah, you can disregard that last post lance, we are in skunkworks now, so feel free to post about as many of these artifacts as you like.

Originally posted by snafu7700

this theory (and again, as i have no proof, i am simply putting it forth as MHO) would explain alot of anomolies that mainstream science either ignores or attempts to explain away as "natural." things such as uranium deposits that would appear to have been previously mined. anomolous artifacts that have no place in modern archeology.

I agree with your hypothesis, however I have never before heard of these anomalies.

Would you be able to provide some links that talk about these anomalies in ore detail please?

well, now that we are in the SW, i am happy to do just that. the first would be the piri reis map that i presented a few posts up, and there are many other threads here that discuss it in more detail. i'll be adding more anomolous artifacts as time permits, but currently i'm at work about to start my day.

Originally posted by snafu7700
well, now that we are in the SW, i am happy to do just that. the first would be the piri reis map that i presented a few posts up, and there are many other threads here that discuss it in more detail. i'll be adding more anomolous artifacts as time permits, but currently i'm at work about to start my day.

The Piri Reis map is not an accurate map.

Go to Google Earth, for example, and compare the South American coast to that of the map. The flaws are obvious and many, so, if the maker of the map was not able to do a map of a known coast, why should we believe that he made an accurate map of an unknown coast?

I think that what people see as Antarctica is just the most southern end of South America.



PS: I hope this post is not ignored like the first.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by snafu7700
well, now that we are in the SW, i am happy to do just that. the first would be the piri reis map that i presented a few posts up, and there are many other threads here that discuss it in more detail. i'll be adding more anomolous artifacts as time permits, but currently i'm at work about to start my day.

The Piri Reis map is not an accurate map.

Go to Google Earth, for example, and compare the South American coast to that of the map. The flaws are obvious and many, so, if the maker of the map was not able to do a map of a known coast, why should we believe that he made an accurate map of an unknown coast?

I think that what people see as Antarctica is just the most southern end of South America.

first of all, if you actually read my post reference the map, you'll find that i've already anticipated and addressed your exact response. furthermore, google will only give you a representation of ice covered antarctica, not it's actual land mass. second, this is skunk works.....there is no "debunking" here. feel free to discuss the theories i've presented, but dont attempt to tear them apart.


[edit on 23-11-2006 by snafu7700]

Originally posted by snafu7700
yeah, you can disregard that last post lance, we are in skunkworks now, so feel free to post about as many of these artifacts as you like.

I wouldn't worry about being moved to skunkworks.
All it does is make an already interesting thread have much more potential.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, and I for one, wouldn't mind seeing a bunch of links, the mention of artifacts, and I would be very interested in soficrow saying more about his/her experiences.

As for my personal feelings, I feel very strongly that mankind has indeed had several previous civilizations only to see them destroyed for various reasons. I say this as a history/political science major who is well aware of the fact that it is the victor who writes the history, whether it's the truth or not. That same idea can be extended to the ruling elite and/or the predominant religious dogma, and whatever their agendas might be.

I believe mankind has not been told the truth about a lot of things.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by ShadowEyes]