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 SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Not very ancient that we know of but still impressive...
In North America we find Mound builders who were possibly contemporaries of the Aztec and maybe even the Maya
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/490c17412f57.jpg[/atsimg]
Cahokia
Cahokia kəhoʊkiːə is the site of an ancient Native American city (650-1400 CE) near Collinsville, Illinois in the American Bottom floodplain, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. The 2,200-acre (8.9 km2) site includes at least 109 man-made earthen mounds. Cahokia Mounds is the largest archaeological site related to the Mississippian culture, which developed advanced societies in eastern North America centuries before the arrival of Europeans.[1]
Originally posted by GBP/JPY
reply to post by Murgatroid
correct, I'm near rockwall texas....
it's not just a large city, it's where the giants that God ordered to be burried till the last day built a 3 mile by 5 mile structure. complete with fossilized skulls. just like Indianna's famous collection. but it's kept really quiet.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Sly1one
It wouldn't be the first time a site has been exposed by weathering. I'm not arguing this man has found a real site [He may have found one though] but as far as artifacts being on the surface exposed in that manner. It isn't unheard of is all I'm saying.
Not every find needed to be excavated.
Pot and ceramic pieces etc and other ancient artifacts are routinely found all over the world in certain locations just sitting out in the open. Which is why they don't usually last very long after that point. Once they are exposed again to the elements the natural weathering usually destroys them relatively quickly after that point.
If they are what he thinks he has found, We are talking about stone age tools. Made of stone so, they would last longer than something made artificially from human hands...
So were does this possibly leave us?edit on 24-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TimesUp
I've always believed this. This planet has been here for 6 billion years. If our current modern civilization started 100,000 ago and went from stone age to cloning and space travel then there is a long period of time before where this could have happened over and over again.
How can you believe science for ever? We keep updating it and changing the text books every 50 years.
What we think we really know is only temporary until they tell us what we know now.
But it's still "the law of science" or a working theory that we are forced to study and absorb as fact (even though it is temporary)
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Arizona man finds what he believes are ancient artifacts
PHOENIX -- An amateur archaeologist said he has made a discovery that could change the theory of how America was first settled, but the tough part may be getting someone to listen.
Ken Stanton can hardly control his enthusiasm as he shows off a site in north-central Phoenix that he says contains some ancient artifacts. “You can see them all through here, that's an artifact there,” said Stanton, as he point them out.
And while to most people it may look like a pile of rocks, Stanton said this site could change everything we think about how the Americas were settled. “This would be the first Acheulean stone tools, proof of it in the Americas period," Stanton said.
OK this is pretty amazing. I can't speak for the veracity of this guys find but, If true it will turn anthropologists and archeology on it's ear. Acheulean by it's very nature is prehistoric. Wiki puts it as follows...
Acheulean is the name given to an archaeological industry of stone tool manufacture associated with early humans during the Lower Palaeolithic era across Africa and much of West Asia, South Asia, and Europe. Acheulean tools are typically found with Homo erectus remains. It is thought that they first developed out of the more primitive Oldowan technology as long as 1.76 million years ago, by Homo habilis.
There have been many controversial finds going back several decades here in the Americas too numerous to name them all. Now either he has found something worth further research or he just has an over active imagination and is just seeing what he wants in a pile of stones.
Should we let this possible find be dismissed? He does make a rather compelling argument.
As always, Stay tuned
Thoughts?edit on 23-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Chai_An
This is very fascinating, where did you hear about the story of the buried giants?
Quest for Death Valley Giants and the Cover Up
I asked about what happened to the full bodies and the older curator said University of Berkeley had came and taken all the giant skeletons away for study decades ago and this was all that had survived that grab. ...if you research into giants or other races they will end your career immediately, we are told to say it’s all 1800’s media fraud regardless of the evidence, it’s pretty controversial, again if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”. Source
Well, evidences abound, and this is one. I should say that there could be many more at hand, but when they have been found by Darwinians, they have been ignored, hidden or simply destroyed. Destroyed by those who later on demand such evidence. An example of this is the "mysterious" disappearance of more than 50 perfectly kept gigantic antediluvian skeletons (between 10-14 feet tall) found in a cave in Arizona. You may, or not, have heard that Mr. Samuel Hubbard, discovered remains of giants in a cave in the magnificent Grand Canyon of Arizona."Source