Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

American Atlantis


  • Please log in to reply
1338 replies to this topic

#796    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,450 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 15 December 2008 - 05:57 PM

darkbreed on Dec 13 2008, 07:37 AM, said:

For me this is , as you probably understand, of quite some interest. This is to me a very possible link between ancient australia and ancient Europe all the way up to the celtics considering it is the same symbol, and the people in this rock art are very european looking to say the least.

Puzzler: I know you're down under, what do you know about these rock arts, and what do you think about these images I just presented?

Cheers and best wishes
-EA

Thanks for asking darkbreed.

The Bradshaw paintings are undoubtably unusual, known world wide, no one can say otherwise really. You can find the pictures there of the man in a full length gown, attire aboriginals certainly didn't wear.

The spiral you showed is certainly quite intriguing, firstly I don't known of any Aboriginal art in that style, they use spirals alot but generally mixed with dots or styled as creatures or snakes, not usually just a pattern for the sake of it.
Court jester? does a bit but I think it looks more like a European King's head and face.
Do you have a time frame in mind for when you think this spiral may have been created here?

Celtic aboriginals, might seem funny but actually could be spot on. New Zealand has many evidences that point to Celtic people being there before the Maoris arrived.

I'll check on the spirals some more darkbreed. Gotta go to bed now.



In an mmm bop it's gone...

#797    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:19 PM

The Bradshaw paintings are undoubtably unusual, known world wide, no one can say otherwise really. You can find the pictures there of the man in a full length gown, attire aboriginals certainly didn't wear.

Say Puzzler, can you give me a link to the site where those pics are posted? Have they dated these rock paintings?


#798    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:26 PM

Ooops..wrong thread.



Edited by Abramelin, 15 December 2008 - 06:28 PM.


#799    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,450 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 15 December 2008 - 10:02 PM

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

The Bradshaw paintings are undoubtably unusual, known world wide, no one can say otherwise really. You can find the pictures there of the man in a full length gown, attire aboriginals certainly didn't wear.

Say Puzzler, can you give me a link to the site where those pics are posted? Have they dated these rock paintings?

Hi, there are many sites, type in Bradshaw paintings in Google, here is a good site that has 32 pictures to see and this introductory info:

Quote

adshaw Paintings are incredibly sophisticated, as you will see from the 32 pictures in the Paintings Section, yet they are not recent creations but originate from an unknown past period which some suggest could have been 50,000 years ago. This art form was first recorded by Joseph Bradshaw in 1891, when he was lost on an Kimberley expedition in the north west of Australia. Dr. Andreas Lommel stated on his expedition to the Kimberleys in 1955 that the rock art he referred to as the Bradshaw Paintings may well predate the present Australian Aborigines.
  
  
The Mystery of the Bradshaw Paintings of Australia

According to legend, they were made by birds. It was said that these birds pecked the rocks until their beaks bled, and then created these fine paintings by using a tail feather and their own blood. This art is of such antiquity that no pigment remains on the rock surface, it is impossible to use carbon dating technology. The composition of the original paints cant be determined, and whatever pigments were used have been locked into the rock itself as shades of Mulberry red, and have become impervious to the elements.

Fortuitously, in 1996 Grahame Walsh discovered a Bradshaw Painting partly covered by a fossilised Mud Wasp nest, which scientists have removed and analysed using a new technique of dating, determining it to be 17,000 + years old.


In 1938, the British explorer Sir George Grey described the Australian Kimberley as the "roughest that he had ever seen". Over the last sixteen years Grahame Walsh has explored this part of Australia, and its harsh inhospitable environment mainly on foot, and has discovered thousands of these magnificent Bradshaw Paintings. This Bradshaw Art site presents a summary of the data Grahame Walsh has collected.



http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/


In an mmm bop it's gone...

#800    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 15 December 2008 - 10:11 PM

Jesus, I am ONLY asking for the url of the site where Darkbreed got his pics from.

I DO know how to Googlle, believe me, but I can't find the site where he got his pics from.

Can you?


#801    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,450 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 15 December 2008 - 10:52 PM

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

Jesus, I am ONLY asking for the url of the site where Darkbreed got his pics from.

I DO know how to Googlle, believe me, but I can't find the site where he got his pics from.

Can you?

Sorry.

Can you find them darkbreed? Outside of your friends email, I would also be interested in seeing the website with this particular picture, I'd like to see the whole picture.

BUT this whole thing reminds me of something else I touched on earlier here but never delved into.
Here's an item:

Quote

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf136/sf136p01.htm
Were The First Americans Australians?
Ask this question in a college class in archeology and you'll surely receive an "F"! Everyone knows that the first inhabitants of the New World filtered across the Bering Land Bridge and eventually worked their way all the way down to the tip of South America.
Perhaps so, perhaps no. Conceivably some venturesome Australian seafarers could have island-hopped across the South Pacific or taken a polar route (as the Vikings did in the north) when the world was warmer. Radical as this notion seems, three classes of evidence hint that Australians may have set foot on South American shores more than 10,000 years ago.


Human fossils. As revealed in SF#118, an 11,500-year-old human skull found in Brazil possesses features of South Sea Islanders rather than Asians.
Stone artifacts. Scrapers and other simple stone artifacts from Los Toldos Cave in Patagonia, dated as 12,000 years old, are suspiciously similar to late-Pleistocene tools in Australia. (Ref. 1)
Cave paintings. At Los Toldos and especially another Patagonian site called Estancia La Maria, there is distinctive artwork virtually identical to some from Australia. Specifically, this artwork consists of "hand negatives" (silhouettes of the artists' hands) and spiral and circular drawings composed of little spots. (Ref. 1)
Additionally, a remarkable and entirely distinct form of Australian art -- the famous Bradshaw paintings -- are strangely echoed in the artwork of the Paracus Culture of Peru. (Ref. 2)


Two curiously adorned flowing figures from a Bradshaw gallery, Australia  


It is relevant in the above context that one of the Bradshaw paintings depicts a boat with upright prow and stern and which is manned by many paddlers. The Bradshaw people obviously were familiar with the sea.

No one seems to know when the Brad shaw Culture flourished in Australia or where it came from. It disappeared suddenly, leaving behind perhaps 100,000 Bradshaw "art galleries" decorating rock overhangs along Australian rivers.


I'm going off on a tangent here - Does anyone remember Lucia, the 11,000 year old Aboriginal skull found in Brazil? That sea going boats are also in the Bradshaws is intriging to me.
(I wonder) Were people coming to Australia in BC or were they LEAVING it, migrating because of climate change, which we know Australia certainly had, drying it up....


In an mmm bop it's gone...

#802    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2008 - 12:29 AM

Of course the ancestors must have got boats How else would they have arrived in Australia?

And why is that so amazing for some?

Why do we underestimate what ancient humans were capable of?

Can YOU make a boat? One with which you can travel the oceans?


#803    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,977 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 16 December 2008 - 09:19 AM

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

Of course the ancestors must have got boats How else would they have arrived in Australia?

And why is that so amazing for some?

Why do we underestimate what ancient humans were capable of?

Can YOU make a boat? One with which you can travel the oceans?

I think the point is that conventional archeaology finds these ideas so unacceptable, not the other way round.
Ask any of the none skeptics whether they believe that man was once capable of navigating the globe and they will all say yes. Ask a skeptic the same question and the answer will be no, or they had  very simple sea faring skills.

Its not an outragous idea to say that ancient man was sophisticated and capable of many things we do not credit them with - this is the very essense of our search for ancient cultures.

Br Cornelius  


I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#804    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 16 December 2008 - 01:16 PM

Br Cornelius on Dec 16 2008, 03:19 AM, said:

I think the point is that conventional archeaology finds these ideas so unacceptable, not the other way round.
Ask any of the none skeptics whether they believe that man was once capable of navigating the globe and they will all say yes. Ask a skeptic the same question and the answer will be no, or they had  very simple sea faring skills.

Brother,

I can't speak for others, but as a skeptic myself, I'd have to answer your sample question above thusly:

There is no real evidence that ancient man was capable of navigating the globe.

There is real evidence that ancient man was capable of navigating the ocean for (relatively) short distances.

Harte


I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#805    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2008 - 02:02 PM

Any evidence will be down in the silt of of some submerged harbour, or somewhere on the bottom of the ocean.

Being made of wood, not much will be left of it after, let's say, 10,000 years.

Only if a boat was deliberately buried on land, as some kind of ceremony for a dead chief or something, we might be able to find it (if it was preserved in peat, for instance, or sand).

We know that the ancestors of the present day Aboriginals must have travelled across the strait between Australia (or "Sahul", the land that consisted of New Guinee and Australia during the last ice age), and the Indonesian islands (or "Sundaland" when it was still above water).

Even if you consider the fact that, because of lower sea levels, there were many islands above water, they still had to do a lot of island hopping to get into Australia.

What do you people think: that they chopped down a tree, and just sat on it, hoping it would bring them to new shores??


--

EDIT:


linked-image

Australia was colonized from the north, from the Southeast Asian landmass, across what are now Indonesia and Malaysia. Fossils of Homo erectus found in Java in the 19th century by Eugene Dubois were proposed as possible ancestors of the first Australians. Research has established that Homo erectus was in Java 1.74 million years ago. Skeletons in southeast Asia less than 100,000 years old are rare. Wadjak from java, Niah from Sarawak and Tabon from Palawan are all about 10,000 years old.



As sea levels have changed over the millennia in response to global glaciation, Australia was at times joined with Tasmania and New guinea in a unit known as Sahul. Even at the lowest sea levels, however, Sahul was separated from Southeast Asia. The only way to get to Australia was therefore by boat or canoe, and it is not hard to imagine anatomically modern humans, just like us in thought and ability, constructing bamboo rafts powered by sails woven from leaves. The currents and winds of the region almost guarantee landfall at the end of a trip, and the evidence of land just over the horizon is to be seen in the flight paths of migratory birds and in the columns of smoke from dry-season fires.

The early settlement of Australia is likely to have been undertaken by organized expeditions of whole groups, perhaps maritime fishing villages who eventually made permanent bases on the southern shores of the Timor Sea. Given the length of shoreline available, dozens of groups could have made their homes at roughly the same time without intruding on established property. If so, the first Australians might have numbered in the thousands. And the final sea-level rise around 10,000 years ago probably did not result in the total isolation of the early settlers even though at European contact indigenous Australian were not seafarers. Fishing voyages of Macassans in the last few hundred years are well documented and the arrival of the dingo, a domestic dog, about 4000 years ago, is another instance of continuous traffic.

Until the middle of the 20th century, archaeologists assumed that the first migration into Australia took place during the last glaciation, now dated between 25,000 and 13,000 years ago, when sea levels were last low. By the early 1970s, however, it was clear that the first Australians had arrived well before this. Investigation of the peopling of Australia has proceeded hand in hand with the development of ever more innovative dating methods. From radio-carbon dates of 9000 years ago in 1961 to 328,000 in 1981, the pace of discovery has pushed back the earliest evidence of occupation. Dates from localities including Malakunania, Jinmium and Mungo have now led a number of archaeologists to argue for colonization at 60,000 years, or even earlier.



http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_abor...gins/index1.htm


--

Maybe I should add that we not only often underestimate what ancient humans were capable of (no, I am not talking about them building flying saucers..), but also that they had more b*lls and more of an explorers mind than many of us have now.

I can easily imagine that there were those who were a bit more curious than the rest about what could be behind the fartest horizon, and set out to discover it.... and 60,000 years (or maybe even more) is a lot of time to try out things and discover new lands far away.

Edited by Abramelin, 16 December 2008 - 02:28 PM.


#806    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,917 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 16 December 2008 - 05:11 PM

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

Any evidence will be down in the silt of of some submerged harbour, or somewhere on the bottom of the ocean.

Being made of wood, not much will be left of it after, let's say, 10,000 years.

Only if a boat was deliberately buried on land, as some kind of ceremony for a dead chief or something, we might be able to find it (if it was preserved in peat, for instance, or sand).

Yes, assuming that the only evidence we would expect to find of ancient worldwide oceanic navigation would be the boats themselves.

Of course, this is just not so.  There should be many different sorts of evidence other than the means of transportation.

I'm not saying such "other evidence" doesn't exist, merely that it has not been found.  Or, if it has been found, it is not recognized as such.

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

We know that the ancestors of the present day Aboriginals must have travelled across the strait between Australia (or "Sahul", the land that consisted of New Guinee and Australia during the last ice age), and the Indonesian islands (or "Sundaland" when it was still above water).

Even if you consider the fact that, because of lower sea levels, there were many islands above water, they still had to do a lot of island hopping to get into Australia.

The colonization of Australia by the what we today refer to as the aboriginal peoples is one of the pieces of evidence I was referring to when I said:

Quote

There is real evidence that ancient man was capable of navigating the ocean for (relatively) short distances.


I myself happen to think that there is really no reason that Homo Erectus couldn't have wandered around the oceans in this way as well, navigating by keeping shorelines in sight.

There's no evidence of this either, BTW, but the presence of H. Erectus here for millions of years is a better argument for it than the similar argument made about H. Sapiens and our presence here for a few paltry hundreds of thousands of years.

That is, if time on the planet is to be considered as any indication, Erectus has a better claim that we do.

Harte


I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#807    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:58 PM

Quote

I myself happen to think that there is really no reason that Homo Erectus couldn't have wandered around the oceans in this way as well, navigating by keeping shorelines in sight.

There's no evidence of this either, BTW, but the presence of H. Erectus here for millions of years is a better argument for it than the similar argument made about H. Sapiens and our presence here for a few paltry hundreds of thousands of years.

That is, if time on the planet is to be considered as any indication, Erectus has a better claim that we do.


Interesting thing to say.....

Here is what I posted on my own board ( I am the guy called "Blackbeard") :


On my way back to the hotel I was staying, I went to the Recoleta, like I had originally planned. It was about to close, but I was allowed to go in. The library wasn't accessible because repairs were going on, so I went to what seemed to be a little museum, formed around the items missionaries/Jesuits had 'collected' after they had converted the 'heathens' living in the Peruvian jungle to the 'True Faith'. What impressed me most of that little museum was a stone containing a more or less flattened fossilized skull of a primitive human. It had large eyebrows and, according to the Xeroxed copy of a newspaper that was lying below it, it was about 100,000 years old! That was unbelievable, because that alone would prove that a large part of the evolution and migration of man was quite different from what science had always theorized.

Years later I even wrote a letter to the Recoleta in my best Spanish - I was in doubt about the age of that skull: had I read 100,000 yrs correctly, or was it 10,000 yrs? And I asked for a copy of that newspaper article that was displayed below the skull - but never received an answer.

http://www.artforthemasses.us/castacon/vie...12&p=17#p17


The fossilized skull in that monastery did indeed look like a skull belonging to Homo Erectus.

And I just hope someone else will visit that monastery in Arequipa, southern Peru (near the Pacific board of Peru), and check that skull.






#808    legionromanes

legionromanes

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:18 PM

Abramelin on Dec 16 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

The fossilized skull in that monastery did indeed look like a skull belonging to Homo Erectus.

I'm stunned by your brilliance, which one of these is erectus ?
http://ideonexus.com/wp-content/uploads/20...inid-skulls.jpg

wink2.gif



#809    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:29 PM

We are now not getting sarcastic, are we?

Well, here's a pic of a skull that looked similar to what I saw in that monastery:

linked-image


EDIT:

I uploaded a resized version of the original pic to an image host because the size of the original pic was too f*cking big to post it here.

This is the original url of that pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...utavelensis.jpg

The protruding eyebrows were very clearly visible, even when the fossilized skull was very flattened.

I remember I tried to take a photo of the skull, but the darkness and my crappy cheap camera caused the shot to fail.

So if anyone happens to visit Arequipa in the south of Peru (near the Chilean border), I hope they will visit that monastery, and tell us all here what they saw.

Edited by Abramelin, 16 December 2008 - 09:03 PM.


#810    legionromanes

legionromanes

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008

Posted 16 December 2008 - 10:19 PM

Ab
of all the skulls in the link I posted that looks most like "A" in my opinion, can you give me yours please ?

thumbsup.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users