Of Things That Shouldn’t Exist

Originally posted by conar
(forward to 6:55)
17000 years old ruins
Pumapunku in Bolivia makes the pyramids seem like childs play. They are carved in the hardeds rock, and there is evidence of machining. They are carved so perfect, that even today its hard to copy them.

(forward to 4:40)
2000 years old mechanic computer called "Antikythera instrument"

[edit on 1-2-2010 by conar]

I saw this special over a year ago, it was really good. The reason why Puma Punku makes the pyramids seem like childs play is because those ruins shouldn't be there. For one I commented on this on another thread and the scientists who date this site (two of them) dated it the Fire comes from wood, ergo wood is impregnated with fire method. They said the place was built back in 1600 BC or something like that, but the only reason they say that is because the Amara indians lived in the area (who by the way didn't have written language, would be a problem trying to design and cut and place massive stone structures). So that explains who built it, tadaaaaa. And the other scientists went along with it. That place is so old and ancient that they are afraid of saying or researching thoroughly the place. Two, the place is at an altitude that trees don't grow up there, so how did they move these massive blocks and the quarry of DIARITE (which is the hardest stone except for diamond) is at least 20 miles away. And to add on top of that, the cuts and polish on many of the blocks look as if machining was done to the structures. Puma Punku is an oddity because it shouldn't exists and the explanation of it's existence is adhoc. It's like digging up a jet airplane out of the sands of egypt from 2,000 BC.

We are a people that have forgotten something, either on purpose or by necessity or by accident.

reply to post by serbsta


I love those massive spheroids, I truly do. If we can find out what the winding circle is supposed to be around the depiction of the Stegosaurus, that would be helpful, But the Spheriods and the metal ducts have me wondering (also the shoe/sandal indentions). In a thread 9 months ago somebody posted that if you go back a certain time frame I think at least 3600 BC, you will see most of the figurines look more lizard in appearance than even human, and he showed examples and I didn't bother to research further. But have you wondered if lizards/saurans lived on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, why didn't a species of them evolve intelligence? What if a group did. What if the big secret is that 100 million years ago or even 1 million years ago a flourishing society was on this planet but it wasn't hominid but lizard in appearance (why the world over the induction of snakes/dragons/lizards into legends). Maybe hominids where there slaves or workers or even just pushed out of the picture afraid to go anywhere near these places. Then something happened and these beings or lizard species went extinct or away. Hundreds of thousands of years go by and the Hominids that where slaves/workers started to build rudimentary society and such. Then the great flood came, washed it all away and the survivors have a mix of two legends.

One of the lizards and the other of hominids. I bring this up just to point out why couldn't some species of dinosaur have evolved enough to become societal and ingenuitive. I mean some of them had a form of hand (raptors and such). Could it be as easy as there was another form of life that built up a civilization and once they became "GONE" we came into the scene.

reply to post by serbsta


Very, very cool thread! Tysm for gathering so many ancient archaeological findings and the pics were excellent as well.

I graduated from Uni about 5 years ago and the anthropology courses I took were great --- but I definitely don't remember discussing anything like this!

I find it so fascinating --- I keep trying to discuss it with my family and friends. (But their eyes just glaze over --- God help me if I ever start chattering on about evidence for UFO’s!)

Giant round, pre-history balls eh... well New Zealand has them too!

www.d-tours.co.nz...

picasaweb.google.sk...#

The Moeraki boulders. When I visited them I was amazed at how perfectly round they are - they are said to be the most perfect examples of their type in the world. Again multi tonne, mostly perfect spheres. I laughed each time the information signs tip toed around explaining how they got there and how they were made. All they say is they are made of aluminium, lime silica and iron. I noted that most of the broken boulders have large quartz clusters in veins through them.

There are more up in the Auckland region which are little known about. www.celticnz.co.nz...

I have some HD video footage which can be edited if people want to see more of their appearance.

Again more stuff which upsets the status quo in New Zealand history, and possibly links to more upsets around the world.

excellent thread.
I am fully on board with investigating more these anomolies. my mind races at the concept of many rises and falls of civilization before this last batch...for all we know, civilizations may have existed for millions of years, then get to a point to where either they go elsewhere or simply start to ascend into some simple form of energy, removing traces of their presence for the next wave to start...this could be the like 100th time this cycle has existed....

I wonder...is this just "stoner talk" or is this a actual theory by someone.

If I may...?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Here is some of your classic archaeological guess work regarding the atmospheric carbon levels of past ages:

I'm afraid that's not "archaeological guess work." Archaeologists work with the remains of human civilizations and sites (about the past 20,000 years or so is the usual range.) Before that, the people putting out the charts are geologists and paleontologists.

The chart comes from geological data (so, geologists put it out.)

Second, carbon hangs around a lot longer than C-14. C-14 only hangs around for 50,000 years. Carbon's here forever.

While that's a lovely chart, there's nothing in there that would be used to date anything. If you squint at the far right hand side you'll see the section where C-14 data comes into effect. There's very little fluctuation... and what there is represents a known trend. The calculations take this into effect.

Second, dating is done by a variety of methods -- I don't know why everyone hops on the C-14 bandwagon, but that's only used to date certain between 500 years and 50,000 years old. Things older or younger are dated by other methods... and the ONLY things that can be dated by C-14 are wood, bones, skin, coprolites (poop), hair, fur, teeth, and plant materials. You can't really date pottery (unless there's the remains of food or wood ash in it), can't date stone carvings, can't date fossils, can't date metal objects, can't date the mummified dinosaur that they found in Montana (it's WAY too old.)

If you end up with something that's of uncertain provenance, you use a lot of different methods and do a lot of research because while dating methods WILL give you a date, if you pick the wrong measurement test you get the wrong answer.

In other words, you don't measure the temperature of molten steel with a medical thermometer or a meat thermometer. Likewise you don't check to see if your kid has a fever or if your roast is done by using a MeltMaster: www.landinst.com...

Originally posted by jephers0n
Take this fossilized cowboy boot, for example...

That's the lower leg of a cow (those aren't human bones) and the boot was made in the 1930's. It is supposed to show that rapid fossilization can happen, but pouring concrete into an old boot and stuffing a cow leg in there does not make the object a fossil. Fossils are once living things whose original body parts have been replaced by rock.
paleo.cc...

In response to the "Hundred Million Year Old Hand", I believe I remember reading somewhere about that one, and one of the theories behind it is that it is two 'Dino' footprints overlayed...

Interesting... hadn't read that one before!

More interesting still is that it's the same size and proportions as Baugh's hand (shown right next to it.) Baugh hasn't let anyone look at it... and after he was caught faking fossil tracks, it doesn't speak well for him that he won't say where (exactly) the thing was found and let people examine the rock and look for the rest of the tracks in the series. The finder was never identified and nobody explained why he didn't hotfoot it over to a museum to let them examine it like most folks do. He just handed it over to Baugh.

It's a possible explanation. I wonder if the Dinos which roamed the land at the time had similar footprints to these, if they are, indeed, Dino prints.

Not in Texas as far as I'm aware. We've got big round footprints (sauropods) and three-toed ones (therapods). There are a number of very spectacular tracks here in Texas but they're all tracks and not just a single footprint showing up. Ancient Texas crocodiles had 5 toes and some could have gotten to that size, but the fossil print would have shown some squash and scrape effects from a brute that big standing in the limey mud (unless the USS Enterprise came along and teleported the croc offplanet while he was standing there contemplating which turtle to chomp.)

All the footprints that I've seen are in a rock bed. I've never seen a genuine one on a loose stone like that.

This thread is very interesting. I didn't even know about alot of that stuff until you pointed it out. Props.

Originally posted by Byrd
If I may...?

You're no different than anyone else here, Byrd, so I don't see why not?

I'm afraid that's not "archaeological guess work." Archaeologists work with the remains of human civilizations and sites (about the past 20,000 years or so is the usual range.) Before that, the people putting out the charts are geologists and paleontologists.

The chart comes from geological data (so, geologists put it out.)

Fine, so it's at least three distinct fields using carbon dating.

Second, carbon hangs around a lot longer than C-14. C-14 only hangs around for 50,000 years. Carbon's here forever.

The ratios between carbon and its isotope aren't constant forever, though, which is the problem. Because that ratio is what's used for the dating process.

While that's a lovely chart, there's nothing in there that would be used to date anything. If you squint at the far right hand side you'll see the section where C-14 data comes into effect. There's very little fluctuation... and what there is represents a known trend. The calculations take this into effect.

Do you see the words "estimate of uncertainty"? What uncertainty are they having to estimate? Aren't you here trying to justify this dating process as "absolute"?

Second, dating is done by a variety of methods -- I don't know why everyone hops on the C-14 bandwagon, but that's only used to date certain between 500 years and 50,000 years old. Things older or younger are dated by other methods...

The reason I bring up carbon dating in particular is because it's bandied about as if it's indisputable evidence for accurately dating various things. Though if there are better/more accurate methods, that you are more familiar with, I noticed a list of them on a Wikipedia page someone linked earlier and I'd be curious to see if there wasn't anything more reliable than carbon dating at present.

I for one have always been a supporter of the "fringe" theory that we have been up to and perhaps beyond this level of technology before, humanity only remebering part of their true history here on this planet. Just too many artifacts laying about, some will tell you its just our minds playing tricks and in most cases, unfortunatley your "Shoe" is a natural structure of that particular type of rock it shears that way in the field, and the mind can see what it wants in those. The most compelling evidence so far has been the modeling of ancient artifacts that most historians call effigees of bugs or reptiles. I would like reads to look at the example notice the wings and how the venturi effect is represented there with the flow of air on the wings.

paranormal.about.com...

A TV show recently got ahold of that piece sent it to a modeler, he only scaled it up and the thing flew, even "dovetailed" out on its landing, That meaning the tail came down before the nose naturally producing an air cushion for stable landing something they had to design the space shuttle to do, that is a hell of a thing to me. good thread!! Cheers

Originally posted by freebourn
Just look at the Dendera Heiroglyphs (from egypt) - you can see it on my avatar.

Is this a hoax?

Yes and no. It's real, but it's been photoshop enhanced. It's part of a text in Ramses' chapel (glorifying himself... he wasn't a modest man).

The Egyptians had a pretty complicated language and the symbols for their letters look like pictures... but aren't pictures.

Here's what it looked like before the plaster fell off. It's a standard title they give to kings:



Recarving is done in a lot of places in Egypt. This message shows the king's cartouche with the names of BOTH kings (one superimposed over the other):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edited here... I had a headache last night and although I said 'read left to right' I should have read it right to left. I knew this, but I hurt so much I couldn't really focus]From right to left it reads "suppressor" (arm with whip), "bows" (the picture of the bow) "nine" (hash marks) "foreign lands" (the three rows of hills, one under the other) and then "King of Upper and Lower Egypt" (bee and sedge plant) in the 22nd year of his reign, "Setepenre Usermaatre" (that's Ramses to you and me -- got both his throne names in one cartouche), "Son of Ra" (duck and sun), "Two Ladies Name".

Or... "(he who) suppresses the nine foreign countries with his bow, Setepenre Usermaatre, son of the high god Ra, the one of the Two Ladies (another name for Upper and Lower Egypt.)

It's not "Helicopter! (garbled word) Plane!!!! (garbled word) "King Septenere Usermaatre, 24th year of his reign as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, son of Ra and the one of the Two Ladies."

If it had been a real helicopter and plane, Ramses would have set up a huge block of stone (a stele) and carved on it a huge figure of himself with tiny figures of the plane and helicopter and people in it and underneath would have written a lot of stuff about when they came, who they were, and how having these great friends made him a scary guy to the rest of the world. And he'd have referred to it also in carvings on monuments.

He wasn't shy about things, and he wasn't above exaggerating his successes. Every king following him would have been introduced to the people from the helicopter and plane (if they'd been there) and so we'd see other references to them and the glyphs repeated in other places.

Instead we find (as shown in that other picture) the "defender of Egypt from the nine foreign lands" written next to his name in other areas of the chapel.

Ancient Egyptian isn't very easy to read, but you can get some books on it and some picture books on the chapel and get a sense of what's really there and why the translation I just gave you is the correct one.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Byrd]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Fine, so it's at least three distinct fields using carbon dating.

No. Only archaeologists use carbon dating. Paleontologists can only use it on mammoths and sabertoothed cats and the like and then it gets iffy.

While that's a lovely chart, there's nothing in there that would be used to date anything. If you squint at the far right hand side you'll see the section where C-14 data comes into effect. There's very little fluctuation... and what there is represents a known trend. The calculations take this into effect.

Do you see the words "estimate of uncertainty"? What uncertainty are they having to estimate? Aren't you here trying to justify this dating process as "absolute"?

The rocks are so old and getting something that they CAN date with a known process (and access to labs that can use that method) is difficult. We don't have any methods of directly dating the fossils that come into our lab other than by formation. Getting them radiometrically dated would be a useless expense because nothing is gained by knowing that my Alamosaurus vertebra came from a dinosaur that died 60,448,316 years ago. "60 million years ago" is good enough.

So it's not "absolute", it's "statistically significant."

The reason I bring up carbon dating in particular is because it's bandied about as if it's indisputable evidence for accurately dating various things. Though if there are better/more accurate methods, that you are more familiar with, I noticed a list of them on a Wikipedia page someone linked earlier and I'd be curious to see if there wasn't anything more reliable than carbon dating at present.

It's generally mentioned as indisputable only by people who aren't working in the fields of paleontology, geology, or archaeology -- folks who have never worked with it or worked with materials that required dating in that way.

The ones who work with it MAY use it if the material is young enough but they will use other methods to confirm the date as well and will send samples off to multiple labs.

"Reliable" depends on what you're looking at (organic stuff? rock? carvings?) and other factors. For very recent stuff, tree dendrology gives a pretty accurate count of when the wood in the object grew (if you know the specific location and they've done a dendrochronological chart).

Human artifacts can be dated if they were a literate civilization and carved some sort of date on it (10th year of the reign of King Ramses II).

All dating is plus or minus 5% at this time, which is considered to be statistically significant (using the statistical meaning of "significant", here... which is different than everyday use as you may know by now). As we get better tools, I expect improved accuracy and a lot of cross checking (when and as people can afford it) although I doubt we'll ever be able to say "that croc you pulled out of the Arlington Archosaur site died on August 25, 91,645,224 BC at 3pm." A 2% accuracy is possible with some methods on some materials.

I'm not familiar with all the details, but the Wikipedia article looks like it's good information.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Byrd]

reply to post by dereks


"stegosaurus" pictured as carved in old stone is a puzzle.

I am intrigued by out of place archaeology. Could we consider the

possibility that the folks who built the temple in Cambodia 5 or 6

hundred years ago may have had an interest in the bones of

animals that were extinct for them as well as for us today?

Perhaps they had the time to figure out what these extinct animals

looked like and that record has been lost. Just possible?

reply to post by serbsta


Ooo boy, he's covering up the sixth finger, which is on the edge of the stone.


and the webbing is awesome!

[edit on 2-2-2010 by undo]

I've heard of live animals being incased in million year old stone without any form of entrance. In one such story the animal was identified as a pterodactyle (winged dinosaur) and died upon excavation from the cavern.

Are you saying a live pterodactyl being discovered in a cavern that died when the cavern was opened? Where is the corpse? I'm sure many would like to study this freshly deceased dinosaur

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by sparrowstail

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by serbsta

The "stegasoarus" is actually just a chameleon!

How do you know that? Looks more like the Stegasoarus to me.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by sparrowstail]

It just makes more sense that it's a chameleon rather than a creature that been extinct long before the place was built. It's Occam's razor.

im sorry but saying it makes more sense doesnt make it logical fact. Why does it make more sense? Have you limited the universe down a only a handful of possibilities? The mere fact that the stone carving looks nothing like a chameleon and exactly like a stegosaurus means its your logic that is flawed. the only reason is doesnt make sense TO YOU is because your belief system is locked in concrete and incapable of accepting the notion that you have been either lied to or the experts are in fact NOT EXPERTS. So this inability of your ego to accept that you could have been so easily conned puts up a wall of disbelief. " oh it MUST be a chameleon because if it actually IS a dinosaur then that means the experts are lying to the population and that means the government doesnt have our best interest at heart and that means they really are screwing us over and that mean...." and so forth. You see it opens up a can of worms that your boundries of reality simply cannot deal with. Your mind is just not strong enough to deal with the possibility that your wrong. And i belive this is your fundamental flaw.

Rigid beliefs that are not flexible will snap under pressure and take your mind with it.

lets look at this logically shall we. Lets say for arguments sake that your right and im wrong. what are the ramifications of that reality? it means im easily susceptible to radical ideas and dont follow the status quo. It also means that there is no cover up that the world is exactly as it should be and it is only a handful of people online who believe they are being lied to. NOW here is the kicker

WHAT IF WE ARE RIGHT AND THAT IS A DINOSAUR??? What if it is YOU who is wrong and it was YOU that they lied to. The implications of YOU being wrong are far greater than ME being wrong. So given that reality dont you think its in your best interest to defend your reality? Dont you think you would see chameleons where there in fact dinosaurs beacuse the implications of you being wrong are far more devastating to your psyche. Try to approach a topic subjectively i know its hard we are programmed with pre conceived notions of what we think is real and what we are told is fantasy. Just keep asking your self this question over and over again with any topic and any scenario. What are the implications if im wrong and what are the implications if im right. Which answer is going to rock my world the most and pursue that line of reasoning dont be afraid of what you find seek it out.

Towing the line and regurgitating facts that have been brainwashed into you isnt a sign of wisdom or intelligence it just displays an innate ability to copy and paste.

Remember if im wrong it doesnt mean jack to the world but if im right then a lot of people are going to be pissed off..... read this over a couple of times and let it percolate.....

There is actually a place near my house called Dino-Tracks or something like that. Its ran by some hippies and I went there for a field trip when I was in the 5th grade and I remember seeing this fenced off area where I asked 'why is there a mans footprint next to a sabertooth tigers print?' The guys said 'well, little dude, we dont know...' and was about to say more when my teacher made me walk away from it.

Its a tiny place, but the next time I have a chance I'll head over there and take a picture or two of it. Its really interesting. Its a barefoot next to a siberian tiger...and this is Central Texas...just south of Canyon Lake.

BTW, anyone else in the area, if you don't know already, the Blanco river bed, up stream where its a little drier near Hunt, TX is FULL of dino tracks.

Oh and I saw a show on TV the other month about a dinosaur still living in the congo. Tribal people were shown pictures of different animals and when they saw a picture of a leaf-eating quadrapedal dino, they went nuts and said thats what they see and it lives in a certain part of the jungle and walks on the bottom of the river then eats trees as far as 17 feet up from the river banks. Which I thought was wild, but completely believable; the Earths a BIG planet and alot has never been seen by humans...so who knows.

Originally posted by freebourn

Look at my avatar.

The Heiroglyphs of Abydos Egypy.
AKA Dendera.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17246392b408.jpg[/atsimg]

In front of you always is your mind....People are going to wake up one day and realize it was all LIVING....thank GOD for reruns...

Peace

Serb you are becoming my favorite poster on ATS I really enjoy everything you bring to the site at the moment. I have always been interested in this field and the evidence that supports the theory that society has been established and destroyed many times on this plannet and we are a much older race than we think. S&F