Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
SagCan

Signs of the Zodiac in Australia

48 posts in this topic

[ In order to enhance the comprehension of the presented material, the installation of a recent version of Google Earth is recommended. NB: Kmz-files are zipped kml (Keyhole Markup Language) files, which will start Google Earth and fly you to a specified location ]

sagcana.jpg

( click for bigger picture )

Hi,

please read the following with an open mind. No claims are made here except for the claim there could be someting to this. If that would be the case, the possible discovery presented here would be of great consequences. But only further research can bring light in this matter. But for the moment, anybody with access to Google Earth can judge for themselves if what is stated here makes sense and fits the facts.

So what is this possible discovery?

Well, I guess what it can best be described as a geoglyph. A giant work of art that was made by moving or arranging stones or earth on a landscape. Something like the Nazca lines, but very different, much larger and even more inexplicable.

What I seem to have found is a geoglyph depicting two signs of the Zodiac. A geoglyph of immense proportions, over 1 kilometer from top to bottom and 2 kilometers from left to right, representing the signs of the constellations Sagittarius and Cancer. This geoglyph is found in a region of the world where it really shouldn’t be and seems to reveal knowledge it really couldn’t contain. According to the current view on the history, that is.

So where is this geoglyph located?

To be precise, I found it on Google Earth while doing research following ideas I’ve developed studying the work of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval and John West, among others. These ideas, for reasons that go beyond the scope of this article, led me to spend some time closely examining some areas in Australia. It was on this continent I made my discovery.

The site is located in the East of Australia, about 25 miles to the North East of the city of Newman. The exact coordinates are 23°13'56.99"S , 119°27'9.02"E - (please use this kmz file to get you to the right location) – take notice that in order to get the right view of the geoglyph, you have to turn the globe until North points to the bottom of your screen.

Maybe you can understand my amazement when I first stumbled on what I thought I recognized as an image of Sagittarius. Though not being a historian or scientist, I knew enough to realize the Zodiac is not a part of ancient Australian Aboriginal culture. Since it was hard to imagine that this puzzling geoglyph was created recently, it had to be an illusion, a trick of the mind. So, I let it rest for a while.

But the image continued to intrigue me and since I was still pursuing the investigation of earlier ideas, at times I would surf back to the place and every time I had a hard time convincing myself this really was nothing but my imagination. So much so, I decided to try and find out some more about it. The results of that search are presented in this article.

So, why do I now consider this image to be a geoglyph and not just another somewhat strangely shaped hill? What convinced me this site is most probably man made and therefore could be one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of modern times? Well, there are multiple reasons to support the idea this is not just another rock but an image, work of art if you will, that was created deliberately.

I’ll go by them one by one.

First, there is the image itself, as it seems depicted by the geoglyph. Please take a look at the picture below of representations of the constellations Sagittarius and Cancer . Now compare them with the image on Google Earth. Notice the resemblance?

sag1.jpgcanzodiac-horoscope-cancer-Saint-Austremonius-of-Issoire-Auvergne-France-Jastrow-signkl.jpg

Let me point out that nowadays Cancer is often depicted as a crab (or lobster in some areas) and Sagittarius mostly with his bow pointing in the opposite direction. But the manner in which they are depicted on this site in Australia resembles older images of these signs from the Zodiac. The Cherub-like characteristics of the head of the Sagittarius- figure and what appear to be the muscles of his stomach seem to match the way the sign was depicted in ancient times. The same goes for the image of Cancer, which also seems similar to older known depictions. This gives merit to the idea, that if genuine, the geoglyph is of ancient origins.

Second, the fact that not just any signs of the Zodiac are represented here, but precisely these images, is significant. For, apart from being part of the Zodiac, these signs are also related in another ways. They represent two important moments in every year, since they are the signs that mark the longest and shortest day. While the tropics are called after Cancer and Capricorn, the sun in fact shines in front of Cancer and Sagittarius during the summer and winter solstice. On the 21th of June it raises in front of the constellation of Cancer while on the 21st of December it raises in front of Sagittarius.

Third, the location of this geoglyph supports the idea these are artificial images, for this location is but fractions of a degree away from the imaginary line that circles the earth and that we now call the Tropic of Capricorn. A further addition to the theory that these are actual images, is the fact that the spot lies almost exactly beneath the constellation of Sagittarius if one mirrors it to where Google Earth places it in relation to the Earth, (place a marker on the geoglyph and skip to Sky-mode, you’ll see what I mean).

sagcancapricornkl.jpg

( click for bigger picture )

sagcanskykl.jpg

( click for bigger picture )

Fourth, if one draws a line following the direction of the arrow of Sagittarius in such a way that it forms a circle around the Earth, one immediately notices that this circle stays almost precisely between the two imaginary lines that form both Tropics. ( kzm-file )

[ NB: while conducting the research for this article I did not have more sophisticated tools at my disposal, I go by what seems to present itself using the means provided by Google Earth. As a result, my estimates are rough. The fact Google Earth does not allow you to draw a complete circle in one complicated things even more. But multiple attempts convinced me of the reality of this specific geographic feature. Remarkable enough it seems that taking the old Mayan temple of Tikal as a marker when drawing the circle, seems to give the best result. But this could be due to inaccurate measurements and in no way do I claim any connection between the two sites other then this apparent coincidence. ]

Fifth, the circle that comes up by tracing the arrow of Sagittarius has a specific feature that gives even more merit to the claim that the images this article deals with are deliberate works of art. If one considers the place this line reaches its highest point, this can hardly be a coincidence. For it is exactly at this point where Google Earth places the constellation of Cancer above the Earth. This is yet another feature lending more credibility to the claim that these images are both real, and artificial, and that they contain knowledge that according the current view on history didn’t exist in these parts of the world until recently.

sagcancancerkl.jpg

( click for bigger picture )

sagcancanskykl.jpg

( click for bigger picture )

Sixth, if the geoglyph is real, the images portrayed concur fully with what we know about ancient religions. If its artificial nature can be confirmed, this geoglyph seems to have been created by people who were inspired by the movement of the sun. We know of earlier religions, many of them revolved around worship of the sun.

To sum up, I don’t claim to be a hundred percent sure that this discovery is real. What I do claim is that the phenomenon provides ample incentives for further research. The qualities and features of this geoglyph are such that though coincidence can not be ruled out, that doesn’t seem likely. But only additional research can shed further light on this matter.

I frankly do not know what the consequences of this discovery will be. It seems they will be far-reaching. If this geoglyph turns out to be real, it will not only bring up the mind-boggling question by whom and when it was created. The questions it will bring up will be much more profound, for this geoglyph then will provide proof for the claim that its creators had knowledge of the globe at a level that is not supposed to have existed before our times. It would provide evidence of a culture that knew the exact scale of the globe since it is impossible to create an image with features as described without knowing the measurement of the Earth.

Please check the information provided in this article. Draw the line as described here. Spend some time looking at the site from all angles. To me, every new feature or quality of the site I noticed and studies only gave more validity to the idea this is ‘the real thing’. So much so, I decided to risk my credibility by presenting my thoughts and findings in this article. I can only hope you’ll take what's presented here serious enough to at least research it for yourself.

For, if correct, the consequences would be far-reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, sorry I can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, neither can i

good research effort and presentation though ... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, neither can i

good research effort and presentation though ... :tu:

Yes. I have to agree. Very professional, considering that the pictures are made up of dry creek beds - water runoff from high ground which makes it all a bit of tea-leaf gazing to me.

Edited by Flashbangwollap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I have to agree. Very professional, considering that the pictures are made up of dry creek beds - water runoff from high ground which makes it all a bit of tea-leaf gazing to me.

Nobody says this site isn't eroded or hasn't been under influence of natures forces.

If it was just about the picture, you would be completely right.

But it isn't, it's about much more.

It's about the sum of qualities and facts that come together in this site that seem to tell a coherent story that fits with things we know about 'the ancient'.

I found this site and at first I, like you, deemed it to be nothing special.

It was not after discovering the other qualities that come up in researching the site, I came to think maybe there's something more to this.

Of course I can be mistaken but it seems there's enough here to not dismiss the possibility this could be the 'real thing' to quickly.

The story it tells seems to good to say it's wrong without giving it some serious attention.

Again, it's not so much about the images there if real they would probably be of age.

Ans I don't know about yours but my tea leaves don't tell me a story that gets stronger the deeper I dig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody says this site isn't eroded or hasn't been under influence of natures forces.

If it was just about the picture, you would be completely right.

But it isn't, it's about much more.

It's about the sum of qualities and facts that come together in this site that seem to tell a coherent story that fits with things we know about 'the ancient'.

I found this site and at first I, like you, deemed it to be nothing special.

It was not after discovering the other qualities that come up in researching the site, I came to think maybe there's something more to this.

Of course I can be mistaken but it seems there's enough here to not dismiss the possibility this could be the 'real thing' to quickly.

The story it tells seems to good to say it's wrong without giving it some serious attention.

Again, it's not so much about the images there if real they would probably be of age.

Ans I don't know about yours but my tea leaves don't tell me a story that gets stronger the deeper I dig.

If in your first post you come up with(in my eyes) such skimpy evidence as random creek/gullies over and in mounds and depressions what do you expect? Plus the amount of this sort of thing hitting the internet solely since Google earth has become available is getting beyond a farce. It's mere added clutter and totally without any real foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to change your data , The place you are talking about is in WESTERN AUSTRALIA not EASTERN .....

TiP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If in your first post you come up with(in my eyes) such skimpy evidence as random creek/gullies over and in mounds and depressions what do you expect? Plus the amount of this sort of thing hitting the internet solely since Google earth has become available is getting beyond a farce. It's mere added clutter and totally without any real foundation.

Were in my first post did I come up with random creeks or gullies in mounds and depressions as evidence for anything?

In my first post, I assume you aim at an earlier version of this topic in which I by mistake linked to the article, then on another site, now posted here in whole, that sums up many facts that together, in my view, suggest there's something more to this site then just an eroded hill.

Nowhere do I claim to have found any evidence. I openly state I'm not sure and all I ask for is further research.

And please explain to me how on earth I could have done this possible discovery before Google Earth became available?

Should I have found it on a road map or rented an airplane to randomly fly across the globe?

Sorry, I'm all about taking things serious, critics not the least, but to be honest, you make it a little hard. To put it mildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to change your data , The place you are talking about is in WESTERN AUSTRALIA not EASTERN .....

TiP

I stand corrected. Glad you read it so carefully. You're completely right.

Guess the mix up is due to the fact I'm always looking at the site 'North down'.

Dumb slip up.

Any thoughts on the rest of the article?

PS., in itself another curiosity of the site, the fact that the image is best viewed with South up and North down.

If a genuine image it's aligned South / North, or North / South, a lay out more often found at ancient sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were in my first post did I come up with random creeks or gullies in mounds and depressions as evidence for anything?

In my first post, I assume you aim at an earlier version of this topic in which I by mistake linked to the article, then on another site, now posted here in whole, that sums up many facts that together, in my view, suggest there's something more to this site then just an eroded hill.

Nowhere do I claim to have found any evidence. I openly state I'm not sure and all I ask for is further research.

And please explain to me how on earth I could have done this possible discovery before Google Earth became available?

Should I have found it on a road map or rented an airplane to randomly fly across the globe?

Sorry, I'm all about taking things serious, critics not the least, but to be honest, you make it a little hard. To put it mildly.

So I'm the one seeing things like creek beds etc? Take them away and your crab has no legs??

I don't bother going to other sites.

IMO not worth a light.

It's your idea to put forward this as evidence. Without Google the magic dragon no chance at all. Amazing that.

If you are so rich go ahead enjoy the ride. Or save your dough and see below.

There are plenty on here who will make it much harder than me and that's a promise.

If you want to find some truly amazing pieces of art fly using GE, to Adelaide SA...then head East for approximately 10 miles. You should be able to find the South Road at the end of which is a place called Seacliffe. Backup to an intersection about half way along the South road so you'll be going North. The road leading East at the junction is called Davenport Road, follow the road for about a mile and you will come to a two story house painted white with a Balcony and a random stone chimney stack. That's where I grew up. Return back down the road skipping the house in the middle you should see a bungalow set on a high terrace stone wall at right. That used to be the abode of Ted Moseley one of four young men living there. Ted - Edward was a brilliant landscape painter who once donated a landscape painting to each classroom at Dover Gardens Primary school. Which is situated at the bottom of Davenport + virtually straight over the junction and I think it was at the next crossroad right on the corner to the right. Ask nicely at the school dropping a few names and they may give you a treat. However this is from memory of some 40 odd years ago so I could be wrong about some of the detail and again I haven't got Google magic carpet or any other version of Google Earth at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this reminds me of the pennyhead indian..........

Canadian%20indian.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i see the crab in THIS one :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty on here who will make it much harder than me and that's a promise.

You got that right.

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

There's two anthroglyphs of Poseidon's trident on my face.

Some folks call 'em "smile lines," I calls 'em Poseidon's tridents.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got that right.

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

There's two anthroglyphs of Poseidon's trident on my face.

Some folks call 'em "smile lines," I calls 'em Poseidon's tridents.

Harte

Ah the reality that is life. Tridents I like. Try using some useless gunk called cold cream maybe?

Edited by Flashbangwollap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the reality that is life. Tridents I like. Try using some useless gunk called cold cream maybe?

You mean the salve of the Gods, left to us by our ancient alien overlords, right?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got that right.

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

There's two anthroglyphs of Poseidon's trident on my face.

Some folks call 'em "smile lines," I calls 'em Poseidon's tridents.

Harte

Must be from chewing all that Trident gum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. Glad you read it so carefully. You're completely right.

Guess the mix up is due to the fact I'm always looking at the site 'North down'.

Dumb slip up.

Any thoughts on the rest of the article?

PS., in itself another curiosity of the site, the fact that the image is best viewed with South up and North down.

If a genuine image it's aligned South / North, or North / South, a lay out more often found at ancient sites.

Your article is well presented and no doubt if i look hard enough i can see the crab , my reservation is that the legs of your crab look like natural errosion due to rain , in that area they have had a lot of rain in the past few months and i think if you had taken your picture 3-6 months ago it would have looked alot different . I think you have found something that is a natural event and just happens to look like the zodiac signs , i would check the area in another 6 months as see what it looks like .

@ HARTE

What a waste of electronic storage this thread is!

Now thats just plain nasty :blink:

TiP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Flashbangwollap Icon

I can only wonder why, when you didn't read the article, you replied twice to it. Like I said, it's a bit hard to take you serious. Not the least because you keep talking about me presenting evidence. No where do I claim to have evidence. But I guess you should have read the article to know so.

The only thing I suggest, not claim, is there could be more to this hill then just being that, just another hill.

I don't claim the creek beds/ gullies are artificial, I sum up a whole lot of facts to would give reason to believe they could be.

About your promise, what makes you think you made things hard for me?

The only thing you did was make unfounded remarks and since you clearly didn't read a word I wrote, that's not surprising.

@ Harte,

good of you to agree with Flashbangwollap Icon. A shame you don't follow it up with arguments.

Your remarks about this threat being a waste of electronic storage strikes me ass odd. Why reply if that's your thought?

Until now, I must admit, reactions are a bit disappointing. Mainly because they, except for one, seem to be based a quick glimpses of the picture and lack any arguments.

But I guess that is your idea of making things hard. And you're right about that, it's hard to discus or defend my theory without any meaningful criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article is well presented and no doubt if i look hard enough i can see the crab , my reservation is that the legs of your crab look like natural errosion due to rain , in that area they have had a lot of rain in the past few months and i think if you had taken your picture 3-6 months ago it would have looked alot different . I think you have found something that is a natural event and just happens to look like the zodiac signs , i would check the area in another 6 months as see what it looks like .

@ HARTE

Now thats just plain nasty :blink:

TiP.

Thanks for your reply.

First time I discovered this site was in December 2009. So, yes it could be lines due to erosion, but no, it can't be recent. Also, it could be I'm putting people of track by asking to notice the resemblance between the offered pictures and the site. I'll post a picture in which I'll draw the way I think the signs are drawn here. If at all, of course.

And again, it's not the lines per se that make this site stand out. It's the culmination of facts and qualities that seem to present a coherent story that fits many aspects of what could be expected of an ancient artificial work of art, for lack of a better description.

The relation between the two signs as the constellation to which the sun rises on the longest cq shortest days of the year, whether represented on this site or not, is a given. The location, within a degree of the Tropic of Capricorn to. The line that follows the depression that I think could be the arrow of the Sagittarius figure, connects the two Tropics, even when it in fact isn't an arrow. This line reaches it's high point on the Tropic of Cancer, almost exactly where the Constellation of Cancer is situated these days. Same goes for the site it self, it is located practically beneath the constellation of Sagittarius.

As these qualities and facts remain, even if these site is nothing but an ordinary hill. But in the light of all this, it strikes me as odd that the image that sees to come up, is exactly that image that would make sense given all stated facts. If it would have seemed the images of say Lion and Virgin were represented here, I would immediately agree with everybody this was nothing but coincidental. But given the surrounding facts, I think there could be more than just coincidence to this one.

PS, I didn't think Harte's remark was so nasty. Rather I thought it quit naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! thumbsup.gif I see a rag doll and a plate of salad!

Tis very much Igneous!!!!!!!! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! thumbsup.gif I see a rag doll and a plate of salad!

Tis very much Igneous!!!!!!!! thumbsup.gif

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

Excuse for what exactly?

For replying without reading? For being rude without merit?

For not having the common decency 'debunk' things based on arguments rather then questionable remarks?

Cause please tell me, what is your explanation for all the facts and qualities in this site coming together to form a coherent story?

Like I wrote, it's not so much the possible image itself, it's the combination of things that seems to hint there's something more to this then just an Rochard-test-like exercise.

Or is it just because 'you don't see it', you can't be bordered to look any further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse for what exactly?

For replying without reading? For being rude without merit?

For not having the common decency 'debunk' things based on arguments rather then questionable remarks?

Cause please tell me, what is your explanation for all the facts and qualities in this site coming together to form a coherent story?

Like I wrote, it's not so much the possible image itself, it's the combination of things that seems to hint there's something more to this then just an Rochard-test-like exercise.

Or is it just because 'you don't see it', you can't be bordered to look any further?

By way of a personal observation I get the feeling you started off from the wrong end of your ideas or who's idea it is.

Sorry but with this sort of thing you need to be a bit more subtle. At least that's my feeling.

Perhaps if you had introduced some of your backup research first it would have softened the impact of the over head shot.

Not that this will help salvage what credibility there might be in the analysis now.

However if you look down the How the Egyptian pyramids were built thread, took to my suggestion of anti gravity machines you'll see that it fell easy prey to ridicule. I think this shows a modern mind set which is hard to deny or hard to place ones self (Modern man) in an ancient setting.

So I can sympathize since all I was trying to do was seed some more ancient way of looking at certain texts.

However as an experiment it showed just how readily most accept relatively modern concepts and science overall.

Personally I'm not worried in the least about building credibility on here for I think that before the mysterious blanks and anomalies of ancient history are satisfactorily filled in as to my comments will have long been forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SagCan . When I owned a four wheel drive Jeep , some twenty years ago now , I drove through that area in company with a friend in a Landrover , there are some unfenced isolated cattle stations of very large acreage , as well as the Iron ore mines in that area of WA , and quite a few tracks mostly ending up at distant windmills .

Of course it would be impossible to see such images from the ground , and yes I can clearly see the outline of Sagittarius but the Crab image is less distinct , but as you mentioned 'All things are possible' .

Some kilometers north of Alice Springs on the main road to Darwin is a Truck Stop Diner come Trailer Park that boasts the highest number of UFO sightings in Australia , it's called Wycliffe Well , you can Google it , I went through there last year hoping to see a UFO but there was a lot of cloud about with heavy rain on and off so I didn't stay long and pressed on to Darwin with out seeing any unusual objects in the sky .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but igneous is no excuse.

Harte

A simple reply not an excuse, I'm not hear to de-bunk but to enjoy the threads. I read the whole post and found It very interesting and like I said, very well done. Im able to admit that the topic is not my forte.

Dont mistake simple comedy with rude!rolleyes.gif

When I viewed the picture provided, at first glance that is exactly what I saw! lol

Igneous due to that whole area is mining country, iron ore, etc. Was actually trying to head towards magnetics and geology of the area. On this note i can only share what I do know! tongue.gif

So again, OP that is what I saw and i do believe you still did great job on this open eyed thread!

Trog.,. BTW, you gotta cut an arm to pay for a cold drink at Wycliffe Well. lol good to see you made It safe to Darwin! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.