Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt's Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast

reply to post by bottleslingguy



Sorry, for the link, trying to fix it - it shows a working demonstration of drilling into granite using simple tools to get precision cuts.

Look at what the Roman Legions achieved - 5'000 men working together could build roads, aqueducts, bridges, towns, etc. And they did not invent this knowledge, they merely adapted what was already known. Look at the huge amount of work carried out by one legion in Spain under Julius Caesar.

The simple fact is we have lost knowledge of how much of this was carried out. Destruction of the Villa of Papyrii, for example, in Herculaneum. Never mind the destruction of the Library at Alexandria! Plus subsequent actions from groups like the Huns who systematically destroyed pretty much everything they came into contact with.

Originally posted by JAY1980

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by JAY1980

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by JAY1980
These cities that predate the pyramids always amaze me. They are like the ancient ancestors to our ancient ancestors. We know almost nothing of these people.

Um, yes.

However, this doesn't predate the pyramids, as I and several others have stated in this thread.

Harte

Um.. Didn't have time to read the whole thread... Sorry. Göbekli Tepe does predate the pyramids though.

Yes as do several hundred other sites. The use of 'older than the pyramids' is a rather empty statement

Not really sure why you felt necessary to comment. Wasn't really talking to you, and usualy I don't pay attention to troll's. But i'll humor you.

Seeing as you have dominated this thread by posting something every 5min, and calling out every member who's veiws don't match yours. It's rather pointless to point out someones "empty statement" with your own "empty statement". Congrats!! You have have single handedly de-railed the whole thread. No need to reply I got better things to do than sit around here all day.

The thread was off the rails from the Op.

Hans, in the quoted post you used, is not voicing an opinion. He is voicing a fact.

Look at the thread title: "Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt's Pyramids..."

Wrong from the get-go.

Look at the posts Hans has replied to. They comment about this being evidence of some advanced unknown civilization, that the site constitutes civilization, that the site is Pre-Clovis, etc.

All of the above are not only wrong, they are so wrong that they betray an incredible ignorance among the people that wrote such things.

Now, such people may wish to remain ignorant. If that is the case, they usually come back with replies such as yours above, where facts presented by a poster like Hans are mischaracterized as "opinion" by the ones wishing to hold on to their ignorance.

One should note that the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance," not "Perpetuate Ignorance."

Hans is merely denying ignorance, whatever your opinion of his posts might be.

Harte

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Flavian
Despite all that, there is no evidence anywhere (yet found) of an advanced civilization. That is not to do down the accomplishments and way of life of the native inhabitants who were living as their forebears had done - that was advanced in its own way.

did you check out the Ancient Canal Builders site? www.ancientcanalbuilders.com...

The scale of the whole thing is bigger than our biggest accomplishments. I'm sure people will say "well gee, given enough manpower, people can do amazing things and maybe they had some other way of doing the work blah blah blah..." and my response to that is, that that is exactly the point- there were advanced types of technology and machinery way back then, when conventional science says people were living in caves, grunting at one another.

Moving muck does not take any advanced technology.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
Take the Sphynx for example, erosion evidence proves without a doubt that it was constructed closer to twelve thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age when the area was a rainy savannah.

You have the theory wrong here, and in any case, there exists no evidence whatsoever that the Sphinx predates the Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.

None.

Not only that but the temple in front of the Sphynx is built with huge stones that were cut out from the area around the body. To do work with this level of technological sophistication ( forget about why they were doing it) it takes more than sticks and vines. Even much more than that, there are physics involved- supposedly Egypt had only copper when the Sphynx/temple was supposedly built and even if they could build a diamond tipped copper drill bit and figure a way to spin it at tens of thousands of rpms and apply enough pressure to the tip, the copper would soften and deform. People with barely more than their bare hands can not accomplish the physical tasks necessary without machinery at least as sophisticated as ours today. There's really no way around it.

In fact, field archaeologists have sawn limestone blocks with copoper saws, proving that there is not a single bit of shaped stone from Ancient Egypt that couldn't have been shaped using the technology the AE's are known to have had.

There is abundant info here at ATS regarding how this was done, as well as how it was done with granite.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Hans is merely denying ignorance, whatever your opinion of his posts might be.

Harte

Thanks Harte for dealing with Mr Joy! Exactly right; this op was badly flawed and the facts put out by follow on posters were not clued into present archaeological knowledge.The only way to correct that is noting it and providing evidence to the contrary.

Plus due to my enormous 'mental powers' I also put up the exact moment agricutlure and settled life began for humanity - you would be think people would be offering congratulations ! lol

Originally posted by Harte


Now, such people may wish to remain ignorant. If that is the case, they usually come back with replies such as yours above, where facts presented by a poster like Hans are mischaracterized as "opinion" by the ones wishing to hold on to their ignorance.

One should note that the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance," not "Perpetuate Ignorance."

Hans is merely denying ignorance, whatever your opinion of his posts might be.

Harte

i have to agree. i have never seen anyone deny ignorance like hans.

reply to post by Hanslune


Nah, you'd have only got a star and flag if you had got the seconds right too!

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Nah, you'd have only got a star and flag if you had got the seconds right too!

Damn; well I have a can of Hormel Chili (No Beans) that channels a 34th century BC South asian rice farmer - I'll ask him if he knows

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Nah, you'd have only got a star and flag if you had got the seconds right too!

Damn; well I have a can of Hormel Chili (No Beans) that channels a 34th century BC South asian rice farmer - I'll ask him if he knows

He should do - what with all the super advanced technology around at that time it should be on his digital watch and recorded on his camcorder for posterity!

Originally posted by Flavian

He should do - what with all the super advanced technology around at that time it should be on his digital watch and recorded on his camcorder for posterity!

Huo is more of a traditionalist I believe he carved an image of the moment into the side of his water buffalo, Madame Savendroog. I'll ask

Atlantis
2nd~~!

Originally posted by Parta

i have to agree. i have never seen anyone deny ignorance like hans.

That was pretty funny Parta.

Harte

This is an interesitng post, but I would suggest that, people who are interested in this subject matter, do some research. The article that the OP cites is a travel article form the Examiner. That does not, in itself, refute the import of the post, but it should be borne in mind that the reference is not a scholarly publication.

Originally posted by thomowen20
This is an interesitng post, but I would suggest that, people who are interested in this subject matter, do some research. The article that the OP cites is a travel article form the Examiner. That does not, in itself, refute the import of the post, but it should be borne in mind that the reference is not a scholarly publication.

Any reputable reference link is always greatly appreciated in any thread. I wonder why you only noted the lack of a certain standard of source material by the OP...instead of posting what you are talking about yourself.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

Sorry, for the link, trying to fix it - it shows a working demonstration of drilling into granite using simple tools to get precision cuts.

Look at what the Roman Legions achieved - 5'000 men working together could build roads, aqueducts, bridges, towns, etc. And they did not invent this knowledge, they merely adapted what was already known. Look at the huge amount of work carried out by one legion in Spain under Julius Caesar.

The simple fact is we have lost knowledge of how much of this was carried out. Destruction of the Villa of Papyrii, for example, in Herculaneum. Never mind the destruction of the Library at Alexandria! Plus subsequent actions from groups like the Huns who systematically destroyed pretty much everything they came into contact with.

I doubt the video is even close in scale to what they were doing 12 thousand years ago.

The things the Romans were working with are no match for the size of blocks they dealt with thousands of years earlier.

"The simple fact is we have lost knowledge of how much of this was carried out. " You guys always fall into this trap and you are actually making my point. Other than metals what kinds of materials COULD they have been using to do what's been done? How could such a superior ability be lost? Doesn't that seem like a great advantage to have as a civilization- the ability to mysteriously cut, shape and maneuver gigantic blocks of stone? The Roman Temple of Jupiter (I think) in Lebanon sits on top of a foundation ( they didn't build it ) that uses blocks much bigger than anything the Romans worked with.

You can't just gloss over the real world physics involved with this, so you're basically just speculating and if you can't come up with a better guess than that you need to start reconsidering your story.

How else can granite be cut into shapes without the materials, pressures, temperatures that we know of today that must be involved or else you're talking about things that HAD TO COME FROM some other more advanced civilization? Otherwise what you're saying is that supposedly before there was language the people were able to build gigantic metal machines with the ability to cut and move granite in huge proportions.

Originally posted by Harte

Moving muck does not take any advanced technology.

I mentioned "scale of work" in regard to the canals. The amount of physical labor involved in doing what is apparent up and down the East coast and into the Gulf, begs the question how it was done without language and sophisticated engineering. Your saying people twelve or so thousand years ago just thought it would be cool to start digging perfectly straight for like a hundred miles?

Originally posted by Harte

You have the theory wrong here, and in any case, there exists no evidence whatsoever that the Sphinx predates the Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.

None.

Enlighten me on how that is not rain erosion. It's a forensic wet dream. There's no getting around it. I'm sure you and your ilk will try though.

Originally posted by Harte
In fact, field archaeologists have sawn limestone blocks with copoper saws, proving that there is not a single bit of shaped stone from Ancient Egypt that couldn't have been shaped using the technology the AE's are known to have had.

There is abundant info here at ATS regarding how this was done, as well as how it was done with granite.

BS, nothing even close to the scale we're talking about and you're wrong if you say "all you have to do is scale it up" because it don't work like that.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
.

The things the Romans were working with are no match for the size of blocks they dealt with thousands of years earlier.

They cut and moved 800 ton blocks which fairly impressive. The AE did move 2-3 objects that were heavier but then they had a much long run of civilization

"The simple fact is we have lost knowledge of how much of this was carried out. " You guys always fall into this trap and you are actually making my point. Other than metals what kinds of materials COULD they have been using to do what's been done?

the ones they had, they seemed to have done quite well using simple techniques with great skill

How could such a superior ability be lost? Doesn't that seem like a great advantage to have as a civilization- the ability to mysteriously cut, shape and maneuver gigantic blocks of stone?

No, they did so because they couldn't build an arch nor did they have a good concrete. The Romans had both and used that easier technique

The Roman Temple of Jupiter (I think) in Lebanon sits on top of a foundation ( they didn't build it ) that uses blocks much bigger than anything the Romans worked with.

Actually they did, there is a nice thread here where that was re-researched and confirmed

Baalbek - Roman around and on top of early bronze age site

You can't just gloss over the real world physics involved with this, so you're basically just speculating and if you can't come up with a better guess than that you need to start reconsidering your story.

Ah, I believe you have that mixed up you are the one speculating by denying existing evidence - we have AE images they drew of themselves moving large blocks of stone.....

How else can granite be cut into shapes without the materials, pressures, temperatures that we know of today that must be involved or else you're talking about things that HAD TO COME FROM some other more advanced civilization?

Bash holes in it with harder stone (diorite) put in wooden wedges, wet them and as they expand the granite cracks

Otherwise what you're saying is that supposedly before there was language the people were able to build gigantic metal machines with the ability to cut and move granite in huge proportions.

Ahhh, the AE had a langauge - maybe you mean something else, please clarify

reply to post by Hanslune


You keep referring to the AEs and I'm talking about people much older, besides, the ideas you've brought up in no way give a comprehensive explanation of how they did what was done, when it was done.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

You keep referring to the AEs and I'm talking about people much older, besides, the ideas you've brought up in no way give a comprehensive explanation of how they did what was done, when it was done.

The AE were the masters of moving large stone and left some records of it. If you mean the monolithics then they are much smaller than the heaviest stones moved by AE. They also left no appreciative records.

For menhirs or monolithics the largest was Er Grah which weighted in at around 280 tons.

reply to post by predator0187


This has really no relation to "civilization". The word "civilization" requires a much more, than a simple shell circle around a group of permanent tents.

First things first, why should they use shells? Obviously because the place was close to the sea, and at sea level and they probably observed that shells that gathered at the shore, stopped the sea from coming too far. Made a barrier from the sea. The wall, is therefore made to protect them against the water levels. Very simple, and has no relevence to religion, religious concept, theist or philosophical mindset, or any form of self governing. All of which are a requirement, to be able to call it a "civilization".

Other shell settings, probably originate from a "copy" of these or similar settings, that were done by tradition but without an undestanding as to why these shells settings were originally used. Which "kindly" suggests, that the indegenius people were far descendants, or far related. And possibly, not even related to the origin of these rings. Neither of which suggests either were "civilizations".

Simply put, it's a wishful thinking ... not realistic thinking.

reply to post by kimish


No offense and I'm not looking to pick a fight, but why does any interesting discovery in the Americas bring up the response that the culture was from somewhere else? Mound builders in the South and Midwest+Lost Tribe of Israel. A new thought on Clovis tool-making=Europeans. Traces of coc aine on an Egyptian mummy=Egypt made it to the new world.

It is rare that a first thought is "Wow. There is more to the pre-Columbian societies than we thought." Consider this: island forming from shells is a noted trait in societies that inhabited Florida, the Gulf Coast and points further south. over hundreds of years, land is elevated or new islands formed by the dumping of shells after harvest. Taking into account that the walls were built of shells, this would point to a similar culture.

I would propose, with the evidence at hand, that this is homegrown construction. Not Europeans.

My two cents.