Ancient Sites & Monuments Aligned To "Ancient Equator"

Definition of theory

plural
theories


1

:
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2

:
abstract thought
:
speculation


3

:
the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art •music theory


4
a
:
a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action •her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b
:
an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory •in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all


5

:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena •the wave theory of light


6
a
:
a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b
:
an unproved assumption
:
conjecture
c
:
a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject •theory of equations

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

Do they have Magnetic North as their northern point?

www.youtube.com...

Go to the 1 hour 16 minute point of this movie to see a list of sites that line up as an equator for our current magnetic north.

originally posted by: RedmoonMWC
reply to post by jeep3r

 

I have seen this presented in a utube vid, I'll see if I can find it again.
FYI moving the equator to this new (old) position puts the North Pole in the approximate area of Prince William Sound in Alaska, USA and moves the south pole approx. 30 degrees north almost completely out of the Antarctic circle.

The question I have had is if this was the old Equator, what happens to the alignments that we currently find between these locations and certain star formations, ie the 3 (4) Pyramids at Giza and Orion's Belt the alignment of the great pyramid to the current north pole and Angkor Wats celestial alignment to the constellation of Draco.
The second question I have had is with plate tectonics moving the continents what were the actual alignments in say 10,500 BC or earlier?

Giza Equator Line

Perhaps you mean this one?
Revelations of the pyramids

a reply to: 2Faced
"what happens to the alignments that we currently find between these locations and certain star formations, ie the 3 (4) Pyramids at Giza and Orion's Belt the alignment of the great pyramid to the current north pole and Angkor Wats celestial alignment to the constellation of Draco"

My guess is that the original locations were destroyed to such an extent that they had to be rebuilt, and thus we have current details like you mentioned.

In other words the locations on the old equator were established long ago. Then something like a comet, aka Great Serpent, hit the north polar ice cap so hard that it tipped the planet, melted the ice caps, killed mammoths while they were grazing, gave Noah a boat ride and sunk Atlantis.

The foundations of the original locations were then rein habited over time.

What I meant was that somewhere in this clip there is also mention of an alignment between Gizeh and easter island, amongst others.You mentioned.a youtube video talking about an alternative equator, I thought maybe you meant that one. a reply to: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

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

Do they have Magnetic North as their northern point?

www.youtube.com...

Go to the 1 hour 16 minute point of this movie to see a list of sites that line up as an equator for our current magnetic north.

An equator has nothing to do with any magnetic pole. The magnetic pole moves all the time by the way.
Maybe you should have spent some time looking up "equator" while you were in the dictionary trying to find a definition of "theory" that suits your use.

Harte

Sorry I didn't see the replies earlier
but once more, just for the kids

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded.

So the OP is not at all posting a theory, because basically as nonsense it isn't that qualified

a reply to: jeep3r

Of ALL the threads on ATS that I did not start, THIS is the one that sticks with me the most.

We all know the equator is the dividing line between the northern and southern hemispheres. If today's magnetic north was the current north pole then the ancient equator would line up what has previously been discussed in the videos. Once again, this is all honest - and fun - speculation.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

I'm glad this thread stuck with you for a bit longer than just the five days when it was still fresh back in 2014.

It's interesting that Easter Island is located halfway around that ancient equator, measuring from Mohenjo-Daro. Pretty exactly 20.000km away, in either direction. In other words: directly opposite of Mohenjo-daro. Could be a complete conincidence of course, but it's still quite interesting.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

I'm glad this thread stuck with you for a bit longer than just the five days when it was still fresh back in 2014.

It's interesting that Easter Island is located halfway around that ancient equator, measuring from Mohenjo-Daro. Pretty exactly 20.000km away, in either direction. In other words: directly opposite of Mohenjo-daro. Could be a complete conincidence of course, but it's still quite interesting.

Howdy Jeep

19,753 km close but no cigar with an equator that measures 40,075 km. An addional interesting point is that the earth is an oblate spheroid and that slight bulge has taken hundreds of millions+++ of years to appear so if the equator was else where here should should be an indication - a bulge - at that location around the earth. There isn't as far as I can determine but given how slow such a process might be to form and then unform while it formed again elsewhere that would point to the idea of the equator changing recently to be fanciful.

a reply to: Hanslune

Hey Hans, a bulge in the right place at the right time would certainly make the halfway distance between those sites more accurate, but we'll indeed need a bit more than that to earn our cigar.

Also, Mohenjo-Daro is not really a megalithic site, as far as I know, and despite its archaeological importance I would say its significance, at least in this context, is not quite as striking as the alignment Giza - Amun - Cuzco - Easter Island.

As mentioned, maybe it's all really just coincidental but the similarities in the stonework of those sites are quite puzzling IMO. Speaking of similarities, the megalithic statues found in Bada Valley are also quite a feat, especially considering their resemblance to the Easter Island statues, but that would probably be something for a separate thread.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Hanslune

Hey Hans, a bulge in the right place at the right time would certainly make the halfway distance between those sites more accurate, but we'll indeed need a bit more than that to earn our cigar.

Also, Mohenjo-Daro is not really a megalithic site, as far as I know, and despite its archaeological importance I would say its significance, at least in this context, is not quite as striking as the alignment Giza - Amun - Cuzco - Easter Island.

As mentioned, maybe it's all really just coincidental but the similarities in the stonework of those sites are quite puzzling IMO. Speaking of similarities, the megalithic statues found in Bada Valley are also quite a feat, especially considering their resemblance to the Easter Island statues, but that would probably be something for a separate thread.

Yeah Bada is interesting I've seen very little information on it.

One hates to use the source but beggars cannot be choosy:

www.ancient-origins.net...

I suspect (speculation) they are much newer than the 'megalithic' age.

There is probably more info on them but it is probably in Dutch or the local languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocks tend to be shaped and moved in the same way and when folks start getting sophisticated they tend to do so in the same way - smoothing the rocks and showing higher precision.

These folks in the early 20th century are moving rocks the same way the Ancient Egyptians and others did, sledges, ropes and a bunch of motivated dudes.






Have you ever noticed no one never gets excited about Roman and Greek masonry? To well documented - no way to stick in aliens nor Atlanteans but their masonry work was superb.

a reply to: Hanslune

We sometimes forget what manpower, time and simple tools can accomplish, that's true, and it certainly accounts for much of what the ancients achieved. But does it explain everything? Some doubts remain if you ask me.

It does seem that not many people get excited about Greece or Italy, but if you recall some of my previous threads you will remember that I did get pretty excited about the Necromanteion in Greece, which sports polygonal megalithic walls similar to those of Cuzco.

I don't think there is much information available about who the builders were and why they were constructed the way they are. And then there is Puma Punku, where it is very likely that some kind of molding process could have been applied to create stones from a slurry, as detailed in this thread.

There may be more than meets the eye and we may not yet have a full and thorough understanding of how some of these sites were built.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Hanslune

We sometimes forget what manpower, time and simple tools can accomplish, that's true, and it certainly accounts for much of what the ancients achieved. But does it explain everything? Some doubts remain if you ask me.

It does seem that not many people get excited about Greece or Italy, but if you recall some of my previous threads you will remember that I did get pretty excited about the Necromanteion in Greece, which sports polygonal megalithic walls similar to those of Cuzco.

I don't think there is much information available about who the builders were and why they were constructed the way they are. And then there is Puma Punku, where it is very likely that some kind of molding process could have been applied to create stones from a slurry, as detailed in this thread.

There may be more than meets the eye and we may not yet have a full and thorough understanding of how some of these sites were built.

So, you think geologists can't identify andesite? And andesite can't be made with a slurry. It's igneous.

Harte

It's interesting to look at the Laurentide ice sheet from the last ice age.

If you look at it from present day North, you'll notice it is a little bit lop sided? And Alaska is ice free.

But it would not be lopsided at all if we move the North pole a little bit further South and East.

originally posted by: Varhaard
[q


SO - anyway, about the equatorial thing: now tell me, what would happen to the Earth if, say, 7 million cubic miles of ice were to suddenly be flash-melted, and all of this water inundated the oceans (and land!) the world-over nearly instantaneously? Could this be enough mass moving at once to throw off the world's axis, especially when in concert with cometary bombardments directly on the poles (the evidence of which is just now being discovered: Corossol crater, etc. - though most of what happened would have not been recorded due to the ablating of the ice sheets, and the constant rearrangements by tidal action of moving masses of water and later cometary bombardment)?

The Hiawatha crater in Northern Greenland makes a good candidate also, but its date range is only "sometime in the last 10 million years.", so there's no guarantees.


When you consider that the Moon is what keeps the Earth's tilt constant, and the tides created by the Moon only raise ocean water levels by about 2 or 3 meters, if you were to suddenly melt an amount of glacier equal to that volume of water, then until it could regenerate, the Earth would spin as though it were being pulled on by two moons. .... kind of...

One moon normally creating a tide, like it always does.

The other "virtual anti moon" being the location where an amount of mass equal to a tidal bulge is now missing (relocated by way of having melted and the water having distributed itself to the oceans.)

It wouldn't be an instant change, but it would cause the axis to drift until it could arrive at a new stable location.


To understand how fragile the Earth's axis of rotation is, you can conduct the following experiment in your home:

1- Fill your bathtub full of water.

2- Get a basket ball.

3- Take a marker and mark a spot to be your "North pole" on the basketball.

4 - Set the basket ball on top of the water, with that mark face up, and start it spinning

5- Just lightly tap it or something, at about the 45 degree mark, while it is spinning.

Repeat that experiment a few times, a few different ways, and you'll quickly grow to understand how fragile a planet's axis of rotation can be.

originally posted by: Harte

jeep3r

The moai were built between 1250 ad and 1500 ad, the giza pyramids around 2500 bce, unless you want explain how that is magically possible or deny that human dating methods based on physics is wrong, go for either because what you came up with is impossible.

This is highly debatable ... do we really have conclusive proof for the construction dates of the monuments you mentioned above? I don't think so, and especially the Moai on Easter Island and some of the structures on Giza Plateau (or Sacsayhuaman) can certainly not be traced back to their very origins using the dating methods we currently have.

I see.

So, dates associated with each of the cultures you claim your line comes "near" have been mislocated in the timeline of history by the ignorance of science?

And the evidence for this is the line you drew, eh?

Sorry, seems a little unconvincing.

Harte

Most major cultural sites on Earth were occupied for more than just a few years, and have been built upon, and then rebuilt upon a few times.

Rulers like to build monuments at locations that are already culturally significant. That's better than just taking a map of their kingdom, throwing a dart at it, and deciding to start building wherever the dart lands.

It's pretty hard to establish an "earliest date" for a place. All you can say for sure is what the latest possible establishment date is.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's pretty hard to establish an "earliest date" for a place. All you can say for sure is what the latest possible establishment date is.

Well unless you send in a team of intrepid archaeologists who excavate down to the lowest level that has cultural artifacts and hopefully find something that can be dated. If you have more luck you find a number of items and you get a range. That was the technique for determining the date of many sites from Gobekli Tepe, Puma Punka, etc., etc.,

Le Site d'Irna discussing the theories of Grimault and Pooyard ("Revelation of the Pyramids") concerning the "tilted equator."

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Hanslune

We sometimes forget what manpower, time and simple tools can accomplish, that's true, and it certainly accounts for much of what the ancients achieved. But does it explain everything? Some doubts remain if you ask me.

It does seem that not many people get excited about Greece or Italy, but if you recall some of my previous threads you will remember that I did get pretty excited about the Necromanteion in Greece, which sports polygonal megalithic walls similar to those of Cuzco.

I don't think there is much information available about who the builders were and why they were constructed the way they are. And then there is Puma Punku, where it is very likely that some kind of molding process could have been applied to create stones from a slurry, as detailed in this thread.

There may be more than meets the eye and we may not yet have a full and thorough understanding of how some of these sites were built.

No I had not seen your earlier thread - just ran through that. If I had seen it earlier I would have noted:



This is a stone at PP that is incomplete and was abandoned. It shows three types of stone working having been done to to it, bashing, pecking and abrasive smoothing.

While the full techniques of most sites are not fully understand they used standard stone working solutions to the same types of work. This can lead to some stone work looking similar. Protrusions, smoothing etc.

What we don't see is a common culture at these sites which is not unusual as they were built thousands of years apart.

Yeah the poor Romans and Greeks - the greatest ancient building was the Pantheon where the Romans managed to place a 5,000 ton concrete - with no reinforcement - on top of eight pillars. Now THAT is impressive.

originally posted by: Harte

So, you think geologists can't identify andesite? And andesite can't be made with a slurry. It's igneous.

Why should I doubt that? They're certainly capable one would think... but I think that Ewald Schuster's observation is still intriguing, whether he's right or not. Here's a quote from one of his articles that kind of addresses the geology part:

The question is did they know how to make a stone like slurry that has fooled us to this day that these are real rocks?

Source