Slashdot Mirror

In case anyone cares, Enceladus was one of the children of Uranus and Gaia, one of a race of giants. Depending on which version you prefer, he was either killed by Athena or by Silenus, the drunken butt-buddy of Dionysus and buried on the isle of Sicily. I prefer the Athena story, because Athena was hot.

Esoteric circles believe that the giants that appear in almost every single culture's mythology were actually the first draft of the Annunaki, who bred them here on Earth as miners after they came here from Nubaru (or "Planet X"), until one of the Shining Ones decided to breed with a primate female, creating homo sapiens. And then all hell broke loose.

I'm pretty sure it's all BS, but I like a good story, and really, who knows? Newspapers from the 1800s and early 1900s were full of stories of giant skeletons being found in burial mounds before the US government, acting completely unlike themselves, decided to make it a federal crime to dig at the megalithic burial mounds, citing "respect for Native American culture" (which, considering history, really doesn't sound like the US government. Newspaper reports from that time about these skeletons and mummies being found definitely exist, but like I said, it's probably all BS. It still makes for a good tale, though.

Entheogenic madman Graham Hancock presents the saga here, in case you want a spooky bedtime story. http://www.grahamhancock.com/f...

> That guy is a complete xenophobe.

That's putting it rather nicely. He's an Egyptian bigot with an ego the size of the pyramid. His arrogance is completely unable to accept the fact that the progress of civilization is cyclic NOT linear.

He is also completely unable to accept the fact that the Sphinx had _water_ erosion. Geologists don't give a shit about the "status quo" of history / archeology. Rocks don't lie. Now the interpretation may be faulty, but when you have 200+ geologists accepting the conclusion, that's pretty damning evidence that Zahi is not interested in facts that burst his little bubble.

Some geologists dated it be around 12,000 BC, others not so old. Fore more details, see the conflicting theories.

http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html

and

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/TempleR1.php

It sounds like some "real" archaeologists might owe Graham Hancock an apology. He's been saying for years that entire civilizations were swallowed up and lost at the end of the last ice age:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/archive/underworld/

I take his theories with a really large grain of salt, but it seems the basic idea isn't so crazy anymore.

Necron69

The most interesting thing about all of this, imho, is the fact that we are still trying to figure out how the pyramids were made. Here we are in the 21st century, and our top scientist/engineers can't figure out how a bunch of stone age people created one of the world's most sophisticated engineering feats ever. Why is that? This new spiral theory may indeed be correct, but they instantly dismiss one of the most compelling facts: the pyramid of Khufu was NOT built by the pharaoh Khufu. Khufu's name appears nowhere in or on the pyramid (except for one scribble of graffiti). Egyptians were obsessed with covering their works with words, names, and decorations: the Great pyramid is virtually devoid of any decoration of any kind. Why is this important? It's important because it suggests that the pyramid already existed long before the stone age building timeframe. Graham Hancock is the main proponent of this ancient theory and his book Fingerprints of the Gods is a fascinating theory about how the pyramids are much older than we expect. The inner-ramp theory people dismiss this theory off hand in their 3d video, but it's a theory that's worth exploring if you consider yourself a true Egyptologist.

I know you're joking, but given the fact that we're finding old stuff based on some pretty intense knowledge, I'm starting to think that Graham Hancock might be right about us being older, as a race, than we think we are. He attracts a lot of criticisms, but mostly from egyptologists because his interpretations of artifacts found contradict theirs. The book is an excellent read though.

Though aliens would be fun too, I suppose...

The Egyptian Giza Pyramids picture Orion, the Mayan Pyramids several constellations, the Uffington Horse Sagittarius and Taurus (and their link), Angkor Wat diagrams Draco.

Not to mention Stonehenge, and certainly many others, either undiscovered, known only locally, or mistaken for something else, like the world's biggest pyramid, the Visoko Pyramid discovered only this year. Some might turn out to be illusions, once they get the study that mainstream science has mostly denied them so far. But there are enough of them, across vast distances, to signify an ancient global medium.

I'm not going to anaylze their "meaning". But their global distribution and consistent demonstration indicate an ancient medium now practically lost to reading.

The Broadcasting Standards Commission investigated that BBC show and found it had unfairly edited to exclude rebuttals of the "debunking" from scientists and the authors.

I don't know about Hancock's 12.5Ky-old cataclysm. He's a recent investigator selling books. But he used the Pyramids/Orion existing data of stars and pyramids to uncover 2 "new" pyramids, which is successful deductive science that validates his model. Moreover, his Pyramid model is robust, revealing a cohesive principle for the Pyramids that explains other architectural features, including their extremely precise North/South alignment (more precise than the modern Greenwich Prime Meridian), and the shafts from chambers to the sky. Which are consistent with the inscriptions on the monuments, many of them previously unintelligible without the ritual context. The "sky map" model is no speculation: it's a proven model that's been tested by analysis and prediction.

As for the "weird idea" that a global civilization's towns and structures were built on the coast (unrelated to the inland Pyramids), I reiterate what another reply to your post says about today's civilization. Most of our current towns and structures, especially our emblematic ones, are built on the coast. And lower-tech roots of our current civilization are even more concentrated on coasts and riverbanks. Why should the old ones be any different?

This is not a sig

We know about as much as we are going to about the ancient Egyptian Culture.

Read this and tell me if you change your mind. You may not like his answers, but that's not the point. The questions he asks are the real brain-teasers.

I first heard about this in the book Fingerprints of the Gods.

It a very fascinating book, detailing the author's research on a past civilization, that may have lived on the antarctic continent. One of the ideas that he discusses is what the parent poster mentioned.

The meaning of "crustal displacement" is that it is possible that the entire crustal surface of the Earth may slide around from time to time, as a whole, over top of the soft mantle layer.

The explanation for this is that ice builds up at the poles. Huge ice structures, like what we have today. As anyone knows, when something is spinning rapidly it will tend to move its heaviest points outwards, towards the area of the spin where the equator would be with the Earth (like when something is top heavy and it wobbles uncontrollably, eventually falling over). Eventually the ice because massive enough that it does just this. The entire sufarce of the Earth will slide around, with the icy parts being thrown towards the equator. This means that at one point the Antarctic continent may have been a warm tropical land mass at the equator, and was only moved down there the last time that this happened.

The ancient stories about floods, and lost civilizations would have sprung from when Antarctica was thrown south, and the huge masses of ice were melting in the equatorial region, causing a sea level rise.

Anyways, I really enjoyed the book, and it has a wide range of information about links between south american cultures and egyptian ones, among others, suggesting that there may have been one single past root civilization.

And no this is not a plug. :P

I read about that in Graham Hancock's book, "The Fingerprints of the Gods" years ago. It is actually quite interesting. Apparently, we've only had the ability to see the real landmass of Antarctica since around the 1950's. The US used seismic charges to drop into the ice and accurately map Antarctica. The last point in time that Antarctica wasn't covered in thousands of feet of ice was before the last ice age. Pire Reis, a Turkish explorer, wrote the map in around 1570. He credited other source maps from the Great Library in Alexandria. On a side note, the reason that old maps always looked skewed was because sailors had no accurate way to measure the longitude on a long voyage. The Sun was used to pinpoint the latitude, but it wasn't until the 1780's, I think, that the chronometer was invented. The map of Piri Reis is kind of interesting for a few different reasons. Has anybody ever read any good debunking of this map? It's probably one of the most interesting artifacts I've ever read about.

Plato's work refers to the location of Atlantis as beyond the "The Pillars of Hercules" which is now known as the strait of Gibraltar. This is the gateway between the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean. This of course is quite far from Cyprus. According to measurements of the bottom of the sea, if the sea-level dropped by 100 metres, a new archipelago of islands would be exposed just beyond the straits of Gibraltar. This is a probable location for Atlantis.

As for the civilisation being more advanced, that could have been because they were on an island that was cut off from the mainland which was infested with barbarians. The islanders could then develop their technology in peace. Seeing that the story took place some 9000 years ago, even 7000 year old technology would seem advanced to outsiders. When the flood came, either everyone on the island drowned, or those that escaped did not manage to establish their advanced civilisation on the mainland (those pesky barbarians again).

Another theory about submerged civilisation being more advanced is that at the time of the end of the ice-age, the lands that are submerged now were more fertile than other lands. Climate models of India have shown that 10000 years ago, the part that is now above sea-level was a desert, and the part now below was fertile. The land could have been fertile because it had remained underwater so long before the last ice-age, and rivers could have been continuously been depositing sediments on the sea-floor. The fertile land encouraged agriculture which made the peoples more sedentary in nature, and thus more likely to become advanced. The people on the highland remained hunter/gatherers, were more nomadic, and consequently, did not develop as well.

I can't find links for everything offhand, but do have a look at Graham Hancock's web-site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682 031,00.html

Curiously, the expedition does not seem to include any professional archaeologists:

http://www.india-atlantis.org/

Graham Hancock, the most prominent member of the expedition, is well known for what might kindly be described as 'fringe' theories of ancient civilizations, Faces on Mars, etc:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/

For a critical view, see:

http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/

also on another archaeological note: geometric relationship of some sites in Nova Scotia 6010

whorl.da.ru

Oh and ultimately the Horizons piece was edited and reissued see http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/bsc-press_rel ease.htm.

This is interesting and in part vindicates what Graham Hancock has been saying about lost civilizations. He has written some interesting books "The Sign and The Seal" and "Fingerprints of the Gods", which present some interesting theories about a civlization that predates our own. His website http://www.grahamhancock.com/ has more. Gives lots of links to more information about our potentially lost civilizations.

One of the most incredible books to have been written about this is 'The Mars Mystery' By Graham Hancock. The book postulates at length about these phenomena.
Graham Hancock has a really well written, and comprehensive web page, with a page of links that specifically deal with this subject here.
There is a lot of information there, and on the linked pages, about recent discoveries, and not so recent discoveries. One linked page refers to a set of lunar photographs released by Nasa in 1966.
I am not sure personally that this is evidence of anything too fantastic, aliens, conspiracies or the like, but whether it is or not, it is interesting to note that there are some phenomena that do not fit into our currently accepted scientific world theory, and that the investigation into them is going on quite specifically outside of the mainstream.
As Paul K Feyerabend put it, "Success in science depends not only on rational argument but on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda."

One of the most incredible books to have been written about this is 'The Mars Mystery' By Graham Hancock. The book postulates at length about these phenomena.
Graham Hancock has a really well written, and comprehensive web page, with a page of links that specifically deal with this subject here.
There is a lot of information there, and on the linked pages, about recent discoveries, and not so recent discoveries. One linked page refers to a set of lunar photographs released by Nasa in 1966.
I am not sure personally that this is evidence of anything too fantastic, aliens, conspiracies or the like, but whether it is or not, it is interesting to note that there are some phenomena that do not fit into our currently accepted scientific world theory, and that the investigation into them is going on quite specifically outside of the mainstream.
As Paul K Feyerabend put it, "Success in science depends not only on rational argument but on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda."