Theory on ancient structures and the cargo cults that we credit for thier creation

[crookster_man]

My take on this and something that has yet to be explored (as far as I know). First, the specific monuments often mentioned in videos and this site (Pyramids, Stone hedge, Machu Picchu, Cusco to name a few) were not created by the civilizations we think. NOR were they built by space aliens.

I speculate that in fact they were built by a previous advanced human civilization that was destroyed by some sort of calamity (either self imposed or natural… or some combo of the two. http://barry.warmkessel.com/4related.html -(many articles on impacts around 12,000- 8,000 BC). The evidence I’ve seen indicates that an abrupt climate shift that brought on the end of the Last glacial period resulted in cataclysmic flooding of coastal civilizations. As the dust settled and human being began to regroup as civilizations they rediscovered the mysterious and ancient ruins.

What ensued is the reason why our mainstream archeologist got it wrong. Its call cargo culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult these new civilizations built temples around and began to use these sites for the worship of the “gods” who built them. The scholars of the day began to study these complex and mysterious artifacts in an attempt to unlock their secrets.

Seeing these structures as a “gift” they integrated them into their own culture and even attempted to mimic them (poorly built pyramids in later dynasties, the wood hedges, possibly even re-sculpted the face of the sphinx). This explains why the sites often date back to the early BC instead of their true age, Cultural and organic contamination. All organic traces of the previous inhabitants was lost, wrongly groups with newer artifacts, or swept away as the new comers built temples around and operated within the complex’s grounds. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...amination.html

Further evidence of this possibility is in the modern ancient’s lack of understanding of the complex world around them. Do I believe they had flying machines or levitation technology? No, at least not on the consumer level. Was it possible that some advanced tech survived and was kept under lock and key of the rulers of the day? Sure but the existence or lack thereof is not relevant.

What is clear is that some of the civilizations (Egyptians) lacked the complex understandings of the universe around them to create any advanced tech beyond our own. This is evident in the records they have left behind and in the tombs of high ranking officials.

The math they did have was directly related to the pyramids. They were able to compute the size of the earth, the fact that it was round and the phases of the solstice + precession of the stars. All of these calculations are revealed in the position and design of the pyramids (there are many documentaries on this). This concept can be extrapolated out for the pre-historic Britons or the mysterious civilizations of South America.

It is postulated that the Egyptians discovered advanced math around 3500BC, then used that math to construct poorly made pyramids, improving until they built a geometric symbol of perfection (Giza complex) and then they lost the ability to mimic it. This seems backwards. What I postulate is this. The civilization that we know of as “Egyptians” re-discovered the Giza complex. Their scholars studied it and from its study unlocked the math of its construction, which they later used in their daily lives, as well as to create poorly made copies of the first great pyramid.

Any thoughts on this? There is much more I have to say on this topic and articles I can post for review, but I would like to hear input and questions first.

Thanks,

[Perikles]

Do you not think it rather odd that, as an advanced civilization, there is absolutely no record of a written language? I mean, why does (say) Stonehenge not have something carved, even if only graffiti, saying Sporg woz here or something.

[crookster_man]

Perikles,

Why would you assume such things must be present? Why isn't their graffiti on Stone henge that says Bob the butcher, wuz here 2000Bc?

Obviously they wouldn't use our calender, but since their isn't evidence of vandalism from 2000BC how can we prove they are even that old?

The questions I believe you are attempting to ask is, "If ancient civilizations existed why isn't there any 'stuff'?"

My simple answer, there is. Look up "Misplaced artifacts".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact

To start, be careful what you read about these things. There are far more charlatans and crack pots then there are careful scientific inquiry into these objects. That being said, do not judge the entire body of evidence as fallacious because the field is dominated by pseudo scientists and cranks. Many of our most cherished discoveries come from fringe research.

[Strange]

Many of our most cherished discoveries come from fringe research.

Really? Would you like to give some examples.

[caveman1917]

Perikles,

Why would you assume such things must be present? Why isn't their graffiti on Stone henge that says Bob the butcher, wuz here 2000Bc?

There are carvings on stone henge cosistent with current theory. But non suggestive of written language or advanced civilization.

Obviously they wouldn't use our calender, but since their isn't evidence of vandalism from 2000BC how can we prove they are even that old?

But were you not claiming they were in fact older, not younger?

My simple answer, there is. Look up "Misplaced artifacts".

There have been no "misplaced artifacts" at either stone henge, the pyramids, ... well anywhere really, but there have been plenty of "in-place artifacts".

Many of our most cherished discoveries come from fringe research.

I'm sure they do.

[Perikles]

advanced human civilization that was destroyed by some sort of calamity

PeriklesWhy would you assume such things must be present?

Because it is hard to imagine an advanced civilization without their having invented writing. No evidence of it exists yet.

By the way - I can't tell whether somebody is writing a final paragraph, or whether it is their signature. Why is an essay allowed as a signature?

[tusenfem]

The math they did have was directly related to the pyramids. They were able to compute the size of the earth, the fact that it was round and the phases of the solstice + precession of the stars. All of these calculations are revealed in the position and design of the pyramids (there are many documentaries on this). This concept can be extrapolated out for the pre-historic Britons or the mysterious civilizations of South America.

Determining the size of the Earth is NOT related to pyramids.
The fact that the Earth is round was well developed in ancient times.
Thales of Miletus did e.g. measure the size of the pyramids by using the shadow they cast, he also knew about right angles in triangles, and then it is easy to note that the Earth has to be round, looking at ships that appear on the horizon.
Erastosthenes knew that at summer solstice the sun in Swenat would be exactly overhead when at zenith, and in his hometown Alexandria at the same moment there would be an angle (which one can easily measure with shadows), something about 1/50 of a circle. Knowing the distance between the two places he could calculate the size of the Earth.
There is nothing there that needs an advanced civilization to "put them on the right course." The natural philosophers of those days were clever guys just like in this time.

[Strange]

My take on this and something that has yet to be explored (as far as I know). First, the specific monuments often mentioned in videos and this site (Pyramids, Stone hedge, Machu Picchu, Cusco to name a few) were not created by the civilizations we think. NOR were they built by space aliens.

Well, I suppose it is possible some of these monuments were created by earlier civilizations. It is also possible they were created last Tuesday by blue interdimensional mice.

Which specific structures do you claim were created by this ancient civilization? Do you have any specific evidence for this earlier civilization? Do you have any evidence that the various documentary and archeological evidence we have for the construction of many of these structures is wrong?

I'm afraid, at the moment, the blue mice are looking somewhat more plausible.

[crookster_man]

Really? Would you like to give some examples.

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

First, this is not the topic of our conversation. It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation. If you believe that all scientific discovery can only happen in a lab, then you have the same view IBM had towards personal computers.

Regardless, I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about my statement. It is not exclusive, nor does it say anything about quantity or the quality of the discoveries. It simple reads that not all cherished discoveries come from the traditional route of study again I point to the personal computer as evidence.

[Strange]

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

Oooh. Can you send me a copy so I know what to ask next.

First, this is not the topic of our conversation.

Oh, sorry, I thought you brought it up...

It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation.

Well it is not obviously true to me. That's why I asked the question. I'll make it easy. How about one example?

I point to the personal computer as evidence.

Which came out of the labs of the biggest computer company of the time. Which sounds like evidence against your thesis, not for it.

[crookster_man]

I'll get back to your other comments tonight as I would like to take the time to put together a thought out answer.

[crookster_man]

Which came out of the labs of the biggest computer company of the time. Which sounds like evidence against your thesis, not for it.

If you do not know the history of the personal computer I suggest you look it up. Regardless, I'm not here to argue about how science and the pursuit of knowledge is conducted.

[Strange]

If you do not know the history of the personal computer I suggest you look it up. Regardless, I'm not here to argue about how science and the pursuit of knowledge is conducted.

Then why bring it up!

ETA: And I do know the history of the personal computer. I was around at the time, following it.

[Garrison]

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

Because it's the most obvious and logical thing to ask when someone puts forward a theory without any supporting evidence?

First, this is not the topic of our conversation. It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation. If you believe that all scientific discovery can only happen in a lab, then you have the same view IBM had towards personal computers.

Nope sorry you may feel it's a statement of the truth, I would like to see the evidence that persuaded you of it. And since you advocated it here in ATM you are bound to answer the question.

Regardless, I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about my statement. It is not exclusive, nor does it say anything about quantity or the quality of the discoveries. It simple reads that not all cherished discoveries come from the traditional route of study again I point to the personal computer as evidence.

Again you don't get to make that decision, you can withdraw the statement or defend it, there is no other choice.

[Garrison]

If you do not know the history of the personal computer I suggest you look it up. Regardless, I'm not here to argue about how science and the pursuit of knowledge is conducted.

I think I do know the history of the personal computer, which is why I have doubts as to whether you do. Laying out your version of that history would tell everyone something about your depth of knowledge and research skills. I don't think anyone is going to simply take your word for it that it supports your hypothesis about 'fringe science' without evidence.

[crookster_man]

I think I do know the history of the personal computer, which is why I have doubts as to whether you do. Laying out your version of that history would tell everyone something about your depth of knowledge and research skills. I don't think anyone is going to simply take your word for it that it supports your hypothesis about 'fringe science' without evidence.

I will lay out my view on history, it it will take time however.

Allow me to retract the "fringe science" statement I do not want to waste my time here arguing something that is not relevant to the topic. I merely believe that not all inquiry must follow the scientific method as is defined today.

[Van Rijn]

If you do not know the history of the personal computer I suggest you look it up. Regardless, I'm not here to argue about how science and the pursuit of knowledge is conducted.

I followed it as it happened and I don't recall any fringe research on the personal computer.

I understand you don't wish to support the PC claim further, but perhaps you could give a brief explanation of what you think would constitute "fringe research"? That might clear things up, as I suspect we're thinking of different things.

ETA: Just noticed your latest post with the retraction. Ah, well. I'm still very curious what you have in mind, but it would be a side issue for this thread.

[Paul Beardsley]

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

And this response marks the end of your credibility. (The spelling and grammar didn't help either.)

Regardless, I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about my statement.

And I'm not going to be drawn into pointless speculation masquerading as a theory.

[Geo Kaplan]

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

First, this is not the topic of our conversation. It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation. If you believe that all scientific discovery can only happen in a lab, then you have the same view IBM had towards personal computers.

Regardless, I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about my statement. It is not exclusive, nor does it say anything about quantity or the quality of the discoveries. It simple reads that not all cherished discoveries come from the traditional route of study again I point to the personal computer as evidence.

Your evasiveness is straight (not "strait") out of the standard playbook of self-proclaimed Keepers Of the Truth. The rest of us benighted souls require evidence, unfortunately. Care to provide some? Any?

You posted here, so presumably understand what the rules of this forum require. We eagerly await the enlightenment you offer, but it will have to consist of more than mere declarations on your part. I could just as passionately assert that nanognomes explain all. Whom to believe -- the more passionate advocate, or the one with actual evidence? Loud shouting and repetition don't improve the validity of an argument, so perhaps the scientific method actually is the best way to separate fact from fertilizer, truth-sayers from snake-oil salesmen.

[kleindoofy]

... sites often date back to the early BC ...

"The early BC"?

How does one calulate "early BC"?

Do you mean the primordial slime? That would be pretty early.

Do you mean BC only in relation to humans or in relation to the forming of the planet?

Unless otherwise defined, "BC" includes the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang, minus the last ~2010 years.

Btw, why do you propose only one previous, highly advanced civilization? Why not tens or hundreds? The Earth has been around a long time, plenty for mutiple cycles of regnabo, regno, regnavi, sum sine regno.

[crookster_man]

"The early BC"?

How does one calulate "early BC"?

Do you mean the primordial slime? That would be pretty early.

Do you mean BC only in relation to humans or in relation to the forming of the planet?

Unless otherwise defined, "BC" includes the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang, minus the last ~2010 years.

Btw, why do you propose only one previous, highly advanced civilization? Why not tens or hundreds? The Earth has been around a long time, plenty for mutiple cycles of regnabo, regno, regnavi, sum sine regno.

You are quite right Kleindoofy, I do not propose only one ancient civilization. There very well may have been older civilizations then the one I'm speaking of. There also may have been civilizations on other planets in our solar system for all we know. I will focus on Earth and our recent history because, simply put, it's far easier to examine existing evidence then it is to speculate about other planets we cannot currently explore fully.

When I speak of BC I'm focusing around the end of the last glacial period until the beginning of our modern calendar. The history of Earth and of our galaxy is incomprehensibly larger than the time frame I'm talking about. In the billions of years that have passed since the Big Bang, stars have be born and died and through that process created the building blocks of all matter we see about us today. In that time frame nearly an infinite amount of civilizations could have arisen. It is with that thought in mind that I began exploring the concept that our current understanding of our history may be incorrect.

I do not subscribe to any pseudo theory, I do not believe space aliens gave us technology or muddled with our genetic code (though I guess anything is possible). I believe that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Current theories have large gaps of understanding. Specifically the troubling questions about the logistics required to construct these mega structures. I will be focusing in on these gaps as evidence that further study is required.

Geo Kaplan, I am not a "keeper of the truth". I require evidence to believe anything. I am slow to form opinion and demand that all ideas be held up to the light of truth (Review by others). I'd ask that you reserve snide comments for those who deserve it. I'm not saying these things to change the topic and I'd be happy to discuss them in a separate thread. I'm saying them so you can understand where I am coming from.

As for the statement about my grammar. One of my shortcomings, I'd ask that you forgive minor slip ups.

The scientific method is the best way to separate fact from fiction. I would agree with that statement. The difference between a lab tech and a theoretical physicist is their ability to dream. I am from the school of thought that says one must first have an idea before it can be proved or disproved. Every scientist, every human being, has personal bias that effects how they view results. This is why we have the scientific method; to allow replication. That being said, to try something new (out of the box) often requires a leap of faith, which is then later supported by evidence.

I'm not asking you to believe anything without having satisfied your need for empirical evidence.

[Geo Kaplan]

Geo Kaplan, I am not a "keeper of the truth". I require evidence to believe anything.
{snip}
I'm not asking you to believe anything without having satisfied your need for empirical evidence.

Glad to hear it, but these statements are at odds with the tone you took in post #9, when asked for examples in support of your assertions:

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

First, this is not the topic of our conversation. It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation.

Now that you have agreed that the scientific method is the best way to proceed (and, by the way, it is the overarching principle that guides the conduct of the ATM forum), I have a direct question. You cite the Antikythera Mechanism in support of your thesis. And yet there is nothing in the technology of the Mechanism that was beyond the ability of the ancients. One of the most common logical fallacies is to argue from ignorance: "I can't imagine how they could have done it, therefore they could not have done it." This error is particularly widespread among your intellectual brethren. Please take care to present actual evidence, not mere suppositions based on logical fallacies of this kind.

[LotusExcelle]

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

First, this is not the topic of our conversation. It is a statement of truth, obvious facts do not require substantiation. If you believe that all scientific discovery can only happen in a lab, then you have the same view IBM had towards personal computers.

Regardless, I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about my statement. It is not exclusive, nor does it say anything about quantity or the quality of the discoveries. It simple reads that not all cherished discoveries come from the traditional route of study again I point to the personal computer as evidence.

Are you willfully ignoring a direct question?

I also think you should do some more research on how the PC came to be, and perhaps a detour into the history of the CPU.

[Swift]

crookster_man,

Now how did I know this question was coming, strait out of the playbook.

That is not the kind of comment we are looking for in ATM.

I'll get back to your other comments tonight as I would like to take the time to put together a thought out answer.

I will lay out my view on history, it it will take time however.

Allow me to retract the "fringe science" statement I do not want to waste my time here arguing something that is not relevant to the topic. I merely believe that not all inquiry must follow the scientific method as is defined today.

Those two comments are much better.

If you have not done so, it might be helpful for you to look over Our Rules (particularly rule 13) and our Advice for ATM supporters. You are required to remain polite and to answer questions put to you, but "I need more time", "I don't know", and "I retract that statement" are all acceptable answers.

[Swift]

Are you willfully ignoring a direct question?

I also think you should do some more research on how the PC came to be, and perhaps a detour into the history of the CPU.

crookster_man retracted his earlier statement, as noted in post # 16. May I suggest we all move on and get back to the central topic.

[Ross 54]

In re The Antikythera mechanism. Some of the Alexandrian Greeks, c. 100 BC--AD 100 were quite adept at machinery. Perhaps the most well known example being Hero of Alexandria and his primative steam engine and other steam powered devices. It's not difficult to imagine this culture producing a device like the Antikythera mechanism; It seems to be based on the astronomical ideas of the period. Ross

[Geo Kaplan]

In re The Antikythera mechanism. Some of the Alexandrian Greeks, c. 100 BC--AD 100 were quite adept at machinery. Perhaps the most well known example being Hero of Alexandria and his primative steam engine and other steam powered devices. It's not difficult to imagine this culture producing a device like the Antikythera mechanism; It seems to be based on the astronomical ideas of the period. Ross

Indeed. Hipparcos possessed the necessary astronomical knowledge, and in fact may have even been the one to build the device (or at least guide its construction). Recent imaging efforts have allowed the reading of most of the text inscribed on the mechanism. Translations of the text indicate that the device was used to compute timings for the olympics. The age inferred from the writing is consistent with the age of the wreck, so there's no support for the idea of extraordinary origins (beyond the extraordinary accomplishments of Hipparcos and friends).

[crookster_man]

Indeed. Hipparcos possessed the necessary astronomical knowledge, and in fact may have even been the one to build the device (or at least guide its construction). Recent imaging efforts have allowed the reading of most of the text inscribed on the mechanism. Translations of the text indicate that the device was used to compute timings for the olympics. The age inferred from the writing is consistent with the age of the wreck, so there's no support for the idea of extraordinary origins (beyond the extraordinary accomplishments of Hipparcos and friends).

I read up on the Antikythera mechanism and I have to agree with your opinion of it. There is no evidence otherwise. I guess I should read up on the data.

[Geo Kaplan]

I read up on the Antikythera mechanism and I have to agree with your opinion of it. There is no evidence otherwise. I guess I should read up on the data.

It's certainly an amazing device, no doubt about it. It serves as a reminder that our ancestors were extremely capable folk.

[Jens]

I read up on the Antikythera mechanism and I have to agree with your opinion of it. There is no evidence otherwise. I guess I should read up on the data.

It's good to see that. In general, I can only say a couple of things. One is that I think it's an interesting idea, though I think it is basically also espoused by Graham Hancock and other people like that. But the problem is, it seems to me, that you are taking a huge amount of individual data points and then trying to make a single story out of it. It may be that some things will be explained in different ways than others. Some mysteries might persist, while others may be solved. I do tend to agree that there are lots of things that are difficult to explain, but it doesn't simply lead to the conclusion that there must have been some earlier civilization. Maybe there were a number, or maybe people just could do things that we don't think they should have been capable of doing. It's really time-consuming but I think you need to look at all of these different things individually.