Jump to content

Ancient History


Recommended Posts

Our Earth has been Wiped a few times in its past.

FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS AGO THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ALIENS LIVING HERE.

until that Dinosaur killer hit us.

Way before that I don;t know any one leaving any evidence of being on This planet.

spacesailort

 

Ummm... the dinosaur-killer hit almost 66 MILLION years ago, that's about 1320 times longer ago than your 50,000 years.

 

Humans have been around in one form or another for around 200,000 years or so, which is a geological blink. We are separated from the dinosaurs by, wait for it, still well over 65 million years.

 

Cartoons of dinosaurs chasing cavemen are not temporally accurate. And Jurassic Park is not a documentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context of the speech was that there exists a orbital path around the Earth that would take one roughly over the top of all those curious ancient sites. The speaker also points to an impact of a large object about 13,000 years ago. Likely evidence of this has recently been revealed. Giant asteroid apocalypse 13K years ago likely wiped out ancient civilization

 

About 13,000 years ago, more than three-fourths of the large Ice Age animals, including woolly mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers and giant bears, died out. Scientists have debated for years over the cause of the extinction, with both of the major hypotheses — human overhunting and climate change — insufficient to account for the mega die-off. Recent research suggests that an extraterrestrial object, possibly a comet, about 3 miles wide, may have exploded over southern Canada, nearly wiping out an ancient Stone Age culture as well as megafauna like mastodons and mammoths.

 

Researchers believe that H. sapiens only truly became a global species, spreading out across much of Asia and down into Australia after about 60,000 years ago. That's 47,000 years between moving across the globe and the disaster of 13,000 years ago - seven times longer than the time since the first signs of the beginning of what we call modern civilization. Who knows what was done in that 47,000 years, or by whom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too right, OME. There are tens of thousands of years missing from our history books; who knows what advances were made during those eons by our human ancestors?

 

Despite centuries of intense searching on land, not all ancient cities have yet been found; more are being discovered regularly.

We have barely begun to search underwater, but it's here, along ancient coastlines and rivers that we are likely to find most ruins of ancient civilizations. The massive ancient stonework found all over the world is surely a remnant of their works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alignment of ancient monuments with the path scribed by the Two Day orbit is most interesting. Here we have a correlation between a geometric fact and the actions of some intelligent beings. With this correlation based on a geometric fact, we move away from the discredited hypothesis of "ley lines", which refer to straight alignments drawn between various historic structures and prominent landmarks. Archaeologists and scientists regard ley lines as an example of pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-science.

 

1583994443458.thumb.png.3c1d1a0de4df665721605214a1242d6d.png

 

The path also goes to explain why no similar structures to those indicted are found in Africa, North America, Australia, Europe and Northern Asia. However, while this particular orbit aligns with the ancient sites, I'm sure that other orbits could be calculated that miss these sites altogether, but still correspond to the two day orbit criteria.

1583994410326.thumb.png.fbd548ad26195f67d11c025495b9bcd2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard an author talking on ABC radio. He was saying that the Great Pyramid, as well as aligning almost true north, is also to scale of the earth's dimensions, eg: width at the equator and height from equator to pole. But maybe they just drew a circle, halved it and thought that looked a good proportion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard an author talking on ABC radio. He was saying that the Great Pyramid, as well as aligning almost true north, is also to scale of the earth's dimensions, eg: width at the equator and height from equator to pole. But maybe they just drew a circle, halved it and thought that looked a good proportion.

 

They would've been better off making it 1.618 times higher than the base. I always thought they looked a bit squat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who built this and how?

[ATTACH alt=image.jpeg]51469[/ATTACH]

It's one of the few megaliths found on top of crappy inferior stonework.

In most places the biggest, best-built blocks have poor-quality work above them, presumably because the ancients had far better technology.

Looks like it fell or rolled on top of the later wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was looking forward to reading some more tall tales but true.

 

A lot of what we were taught as historic fact is now coming into question with the application of modern technology for investigating what is buried, with the use of DNA markers to trace population traits, and with greater access to contemporary documents.

 

At the moment I am following some research into the actual location of the Battle of Hastings. It seems that the battle took place at a location known as Crowhurst, not at the traditional site at the location Battle.

1584572433917.thumb.png.464faee89ef746c583ac2890e280199e.png

 

The location identified by the marker fits the description of the battle and its aftermath in the ancient record, something which the traditional site does not. Examination of the site by ground penetrating radar and examination of the surface topography may soon reveal the location of the mass graves in which the Norman dead were buried by William. Adjacent to the site are the ruins of a monastic building consistent with the abbey that William vowed to erect should he win the battle.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ome, that would be interesting to follow. You would think that the technology you mentioned would determine it. I remember seeing a doco on the Celts and how they were starting to view the history differently after recent digs. As they said, previous to those finds, the view of the Celts mainly came from Roman writings and the victor writes the history. The Romans portrayed them as being a bit primitive, but recent digs have revealed that the Celts were a quite sophisticated culture compared to what was previously thought.

 

Old battle history is quite fascinating if you're into that sort of thing. The only pre WW1&2 battles I've really read up on in detail are Flodden Field and Gettysburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To follow the story of the search for the site of the Battle of Hastings, start here and watch the other videos this mob have posted.

 

Our ideas of the Saxons at Hastings are based on the Norman history. How many of us have been lead to believe that the Saxons were an undisciplined rabble whom William's forces walked over? Not so! But for the chance fall of an arrow, Harold would have walked over William. Harold and William had been brothers-in-arms, so they knew how each thought militarily. Harold chose the place for the battle and prepared the necessary defences to hold off William. Harold forced William to approach uphill into a narrowing battle ground across which the Saxons had prepared ditch and mound troop traps.

 

As for the Celts, what more can you say than the old adage, the victors get to write the history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...