Ancient Sites & Monuments Aligned To "Ancient Equator"

a reply to: Harte

I knew someone would have posted this subject!

What you called “folly” yesterday is to me honest speculation. You think it is coincidence that this line runs thru these ancient sites. I say no way is it coincidence that you can draw a straight line thru 10 ancient sites and come right back to where you started.

Who in ancient history would have known where the equator lay? I say it was the same group that mapped the Antarctic coastline pre-ice. And the only group I see in ancient history that could have done that are what your great grandfather called The Gods.

So my theory is that ancient astronauts arrived on Earth and built base camps around the planets equator.

These were the original settlements that became the places we know today as:
Giza
Petra
The Garden Of Eden
Persepolis
Mohenjo-Daro
Angkor Wat
Easter Island
Nazca
Machu Pichu
Sacsayhuaman
Cuzco
and Atlantis

“Atlantis?” you laugh?

Yes, this line runs right thru the Canary Islands, long associated with Atlantis. With lower ocean levels a much larger portion of the Canary’s would have been above water.

Personally I think Atlantis proper is the Great Meteor Sea Mount. At the beginning of the Equator video it appears above the red line, sitting like the 3 pyramids of Giza in the ocean above the Canary’s. The Sea Mount lies between the Canary and the Azores, and being much larger island chains, they would naturally all be a part of the Atlantis Empire.

“But wait” you say, “The Garden Of Eden?”

Yes, the northern point of the Persian Gulf is the most likely location of this site, which now lies under water. And why is it under water you ask?

Around 10 to 12 thousand BCE, a comet (Mythology: Sky Serpent/Dragon, etc.) struck the planet, tilted the Earths pole and caused a great flood, (Mythology: Noah/Atlantis, etc.). So you see, people did write about it.

This event melted the ice caps and destroyed mankind’s golden age, leaving it only known thru myth.

What makes me believe this line of sites is not a coincidence is Magnetic North. If that line of sites is the old Equator that puts the old North Pole at Magnetic North.

So if today’s Magnetic North became the new North Pole tomorrow, the Earth would have a line of ancient sites all the way around its new equator. And Antarctica would be back in an ice free zone, where its coastline could be easily mapped.

That to me is not coincidence.

You do not have to believe in ancient astronauts or Atlantis to realize these ancient sites ring the planet in such a way as to defy coincidence. Somebody located them there, and I believe they were all established during the same time frame. They are all Antediluvian, meaning pre-tilt, pre-flood.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect


The old equator? or the Moons ground position? that's the question.

a reply to: anonentity

Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate? A few more details please. You mean the Earth and Moon are joined at the hip?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect


Just that as a rule rather than an old equatorial line marking out the global ancient sites, the ancients were very sun and moon orientated with regards to their thinking. So the sites might be aligned to the changing ground positions which occur throughout the year, with regards to one or both of these celestial bodies, although the ancient site line is linked as a great circle, its not an equator line. Since its highly improbable that the equator has changed since the construction of these ancient sites,(That's without mass extinction) its more probable, the angle of the line taken from above say, Gizza is either the angle made by the sun or the moon during its apparent rotation on a certain time during its eighteen year cycle.

True polar wander theory suggests that a planet or moon will rotate as a rigid body to realign the largest moment of inertia axis with the spin axis. Studdies suggest it might have occurred over millions of years but cannot find anything suggesting it has occured in last 50,000 years.

By analyzing the magnetic composition of ancient sediments found in the remote Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, Princeton University’s Adam Maloof has lent credence to a 140-year-old theory regarding the way the Earth might restore its own balance if an unequal distribution of weight ever developed in its interior or on its surface.

The theory, known as true polar wander, postulates that if an object of sufficient weight — such as a supersized volcano — ever formed far from the equator, the force of the planet’s rotation would gradually pull the heavy object away from the axis the Earth spins around. If the volcanoes, land and other masses that exist within the spinning Earth ever became sufficiently imbalanced, the planet would tilt and rotate itself until this extra weight was relocated to a point along the equator.

link

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

Who in ancient history would have known where the equator lay? I say it was the same group that mapped the Antarctic coastline pre-ice.

What, 35mya? And in any case, pre-ice Antarctica is a large archipelago looking nothing like it does today (or as it was 20,000 years ago with more extensive ice cover in all parts)

a reply to: spiritualarchitect
What about other circles you can draw through other sites? Are they ancient equators too?

Harte

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
So my theory is that ancient astronauts arrived on Earth and built base camps around the planets equator.

These were the original settlements that became the places we know today as:
Giza
Petra
The Garden Of Eden
Persepolis
Mohenjo-Daro
Angkor Wat
Easter Island
Nazca
Machu Pichu
Sacsayhuaman
Cuzco
and Atlantis

You do know that none of the real archaeological sites you list are on the equator, right? Most of them are more than 20 degrees of latitude away from it.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
So my theory is that ancient astronauts arrived on Earth and built base camps around the planets equator.

That is not your theory
previous nonsense

a reply to: jeep3r

Not sure if it got mentioned within this thread but the north pole of the old equator is the location of haarp.

Coincidence ?

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: jeep3r

Not sure if it got mentioned within this thread but the north pole of the old equator is the location of haarp.

Coincidence ?

Pseudo Science, Hapgood came up with his theory of pole shift before the modern understanding of tectonics was formed. So his idea was outdated before it made print
The fact that you want to link that to even more pseudo science is really interesting in a psychological point of view
tell me, are chemtrails real, what about ghosts, how about vampires, all just as real as Hapgoods hypothesizing, its just a pity you can't accept real facts when you come up with this stuff

a reply to: Marduk

Key word theory ? Don't pretend to know something based on theory.

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Marduk

Key word theory ? Don't pretend to know something based on theory.

A theory is a proven hypothesis

A hypothesis is an unproven theory

There are lots of hypotheses which never amount to anything but a theory is already proven...

So a conspiracy theory like that you mentioned about HAARP, is really a conspiracy hypothesis. i.e. not proven because the evidence is usually laughable

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Marduk

Key word theory ? Don't pretend to know something based on theory.

A theory is a proven hypothesis

A hypothesis is an unproven theory

There are lots of hypotheses which never amount to anything but a theory is already proven...

So a conspiracy theory like that you mentioned about HAARP, is really a conspiracy hypothesis. i.e. not proven because the evidence is usually laughable

A theory has passed through the scientific method's gauntlet without serious damage, but still has many inconsistencies.
Certainly not a fact, but has promise of being a solution on it's own, or may fit in part of another solution.

I do not believe in coincidence, so I think there has to be a still, undiscovered Modus operandi involved for these sites to be aligned as such. I do not see a reasonable answer to that as yet.

a reply to: Marduk

Check the dictionary you might learn something. That is if you can open your closed mind.



dictionary

originally posted by: charlyv

I do not believe in coincidence, so I think there has to be a still, undiscovered Modus operandi involved for these sites to be aligned as such. I do not see a reasonable answer to that as yet.

You don't
then this will amaze you
www.theguardian.com...

Hoping that you're starting to realise that there are many thousands of ancient sites around the equator
and many more thousands nowhere near it. So the way that you do this kind of baloney, is just ignore any data that doesn't fit. Its not science, its cherry picking

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Marduk

Check the dictionary you might learn something. That is if you can open your closed mind.



dictionary

Well thanks for showing everyone that even after you've received an explanation designed for a child, you still don't get



I understand the facts here, you don't, so I would stop pretending that you're wonderfully enlightened, its just hilarious

a reply to: Marduk

The explanation you gave was rubbish. You don't even understand what the word theory means.

Don't belittle me in an attempt to assert that you know something you don't.

Did you even look at the link I gave you it clearly explains what a theory is. Theory is not fact.

Your mind is still closed. Just because we have theories on continental drift and tectonic plate movement doesn't make it real it is still theory.

Have you ever seen the plates move, or the continents drift? I fully understand both theories that doesn't make it real.

Much like man-made global warming or should I say climate change oh excuse me I forgot we are now entering into a mini ice age. All of these

are theories just in the last few years. The common denominator is that they were all stated as fact. Don't believe everything you read.

Is it your desire to come into this thread just to derail it? You have added nothing.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

Well thanks for showing everyone that even after you've received an explanation designed for a child, you still don't get it




I understand the facts here, you don't, so I would stop pretending that you're wonderfully enlightened, its just hilarious

fyi a theory contains and is built on facts, so yeah, you still don't get it