Adam's Calendar and the surrounds

[Peter Cox]

Hi all,

I hope that you are well....

I have posted using Adams Calendar as a thing to prove a point, and today I was thinking about it a bit.

If you take out the part about the Sumerian Gods creating the place and the people is it possible that there is some truth behind this?

I went to find some links and pics for you all, some say cattle krall but i think they to extensive for that (could be wrong) have a look at

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki35.htm

http://www.zuluplanet.com/intro/adamscalendar.pdf

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/txsa_4_adams.htm

No please guys Im not saying I believe that 200 000 year ago people were doing this not even sure that 75 000 years ago they could or where. I just want to know what alternative thoughts you guys have?

Like i said it could be cattle krawl but looking at how big they are and the dates that the bantu people came into south africa and all that im not 100% convinced but its the best theory out there.

Please let me know your thoughts.

p.s - I know M.Tillanger is a bit of a extremest with the Sumerian Gods theory and I don't buy that at all, but is any other part of the research possible or true?

Thanks all

Look forward to your comments.

[Peter Cox]

http://www.michaeltellinger.com/stone-circles.php - link to Micheal Tellingers web site with links and more pics of the stone circles

http://projectcamelotproductions.com/interviews/adams_calendar_documentary/adamscalendardocumentary.html - a documentary

http://blog.getaway.co.za/files/AdamsCalendar.pdf - a booklet (nothing special but some nice pics)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look and if you have any feedback i would love to hear it...

[Abramelin]

Uhm.... maybe you are surprised no one has posted a reply, but to my knowledge there are already a couple of (old) threads about this topic.

[Peter Cox]

Uhm.... maybe you are surprised no one has posted a reply, but to my knowledge there are already a couple of (old) threads about this topic.

LOL not surprised at all really, I think most people think they are cattle Krall and thefore feel no need to reply as they could be very right... Im just curious if anyone has a diffrent take that could explain it (alternative history and all)

But thanks for reading and replying ill search the form.. thanks again

[The Puzzler]

Yeah, a bit odd, if the research is true. Adams Calendar is considered to be, according to Michael Tellinger, the oldest man made structure on earth. It is located in Southern Africa amongst thousands of amazingly situated stone circle ruins that are approximately 250,000 years old. Supposedly over gold mines too.

Adams Calendar

The stone circle that has been considered the most sacred of them all and possibly the most sacred and oldest structure on earth has been called Adams Calendar. The monoliths were first discovered by Johane Heine, a professional pilot. He then began researching this stone ruin and invited Michael Tellinger to assist him. Over the years they have made fascinating discoveries. They named the stone circle, “Adam’s Calendar” after Adam (the oldest man on earth). The calendar is in the name because the stones are placed in order to track the movement of the sun, which casts shadows on the rocks. It still works perfectly today as a calendar. The monoliths are aligned with each direction: north, south, east and west as well as the equinoxes and solstices. The three rocks in the center of the circle are aligned with the star formation, Orion’s belt, just like the great pyramids of Giza, Mexico, and China. It appears that this same civilization was being guided by the same knowledge as the civilizations that built pyramids all over the world without communication that we are aware of.

The monoliths of Adam’s calendar are dolerite and the only dolerite vein is almost a mile away, meaning that the rocks that weigh as much as 5 tons were somehow carried all the way to that precise place for a particular alignment.

http://whatarealiens.com/the-monoliths-of-adams-calendar/

I don't think it would be IMpossible that they may have been used and built back then for astronomical purposes in a non-paranormal way.

[Abramelin]

It's really enlightening when you know where this Tellinger comes from:

Tellinger published his first book Slave Species of God in 2005.[1] The work is the result of a 25-year obsession with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, who translated ancient Sumerian clay tablets and theorized about the early creation of man by the Anunnaki. Tellinger also frequently publishes articles on the topic via his website.

http://en.wikipedia....chael_Tellinger

http://botswanaskept...a-guardian.html

This is a review of one of his other books, "Slave Species of God":

"I have several problems with the thesis put forward by Tellinger.

On a general level, before getting to specifics, the arguments are advanced with little, or no, reference to fact or logic. Arguments run along the lines of "Let us speculate that such and such might be possible." Then a few pages later "Since I have shown that such and such probably happened." And then a little later "As such and such has been conclusively proved." All of this without any connecting logic or evidence. Other ideas are advanced on the basis of "Surely anyone can see that it is impossible that . and therefore so and so must have been the case." In my opinion arguments proposed by these means are rarely credible."

http://01universe.bl...by-michael.html

http://01universe.bl...ong-part-1.html

So, according to him (and Sitchin) the Annunaki came here 300,000 years ago, made us into slaves and whatnot.

Then he finds "Adam's Calendar", and dates it around 250,000 BP.

Heh.

.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Peter Cox]

It's really enlightening when you know where this Tellinger comes from:

Tellinger published his first book Slave Species of God in 2005.[1] The work is the result of a 25-year obsession with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, who translated ancient Sumerian clay tablets and theorized about the early creation of man by the Anunnaki. Tellinger also frequently publishes articles on the topic via his website.

http://en.wikipedia....chael_Tellinger

http://botswanaskept...a-guardian.html

This is a review of one of his other books, "Slave Species of God":

"I have several problems with the thesis put forward by Tellinger.

On a general level, before getting to specifics, the arguments are advanced with little, or no, reference to fact or logic. Arguments run along the lines of "Let us speculate that such and such might be possible." Then a few pages later "Since I have shown that such and such probably happened." And then a little later "As such and such has been conclusively proved." All of this without any connecting logic or evidence. Other ideas are advanced on the basis of "Surely anyone can see that it is impossible that . and therefore so and so must have been the case." In my opinion arguments proposed by these means are rarely credible."

http://01universe.bl...by-michael.html

http://01universe.bl...ong-part-1.html

I have to agree with you Tellinger is not in my opinion a person to be believed or taken at face value, my real interest is in the stone circles and the possibly of Adams Calendar being more than just a mad man (sorry Mr Tellinger) obsession with gods and Sumerian tablets.

I mean the stuff is there you can see feel and touch it, and they are so vast and big i dont think their purpose were cattle krall but I could be very wrong.

Thanks again for the post and I agree with you 100% Mike Tellinger is not logical and cannot tie anything together.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Peter Cox

[Abramelin]

I have to agree with you Tellinger is not in my opinion a person to be believed or taken at face value, my real interest is in the stone circles and the possibly of Adams Calendar being more than just a mad man (sorry Mr Tellinger) obsession with gods and Sumerian tablets.

I mean the stuff is there you can see feel and touch it, and they are so vast and big i dont think their purpose were cattle krall but I could be very wrong.

Thanks again for the post and I agree with you 100% Mike Tellinger is not logical and cannot tie anything together.

I am getting a bit confused now.... here he says the circle is 75,000 years old:

http://www.zuluplanet.com/intro/adamscalendar.pdf

But wait, a bit further on in the pdf he claims:

The Johan Heine Stone Calendar

(affectionately called Adam’s

Calendar) has been dated by

astronomer Bill Hollenbach to be

between 25,000 and 150,000 years

old. We would place the actual

date closer to around 75,000

years, based on the movement

of the peoples in southern Africa

and the emergence of rock art

during that period. But it could

in fact be even older – dating

back to the dawn of Homo

sapiens some 250,000 years ago.

The guy who wrote the review is right: "could be" >>> "very possible"">>>> "it is fact" , lol.

Btw Peter, do you know if this 'calendar' has been dated? Not with guesswork, but with methods used in geology?

[lightly]

It seems the walls of the enclosures are just over 8 ft. tall (2.5 mt.) ... since when do you need something that tall to keep cattle in? They would keep many animals out however?

When i look at this i see the small enclosures with stick and grass roofs... and the larger enclosures as open areas.. Have they detected any hearths despite the proposed age of the place ?

[Peter Cox]

I am getting a bit confused now.... here he says the circle is 75,000 years old:

http://www.zuluplane...amscalendar.pdf

But wait, a bit further on in the pdf he claims:

The Johan Heine Stone Calendar

(affectionately called Adam’s

Calendar) has been dated by

astronomer Bill Hollenbach to be

between 25,000 and 150,000 years

old. We would place the actual

date closer to around 75,000

years, based on the movement

of the peoples in southern Africa

and the emergence of rock art

during that period. But it could

in fact be even older – dating

back to the dawn of Homo

sapiens some 250,000 years ago.

The guy who wrote the review is right: "could be" >>> "very possible"">>>> "it is fact" , lol.

Btw Peter, do you know if this 'calendar' has been dated? Not with guesswork, but with methods used in geology?

Hi there,

I remember a while ago something about the way the rocks had eroded put the date some 75 000 + years old or even older but cant remember (i might be making this up or mistaking it with something else) but I cant see how rocks eroding can give a date as that says how old the rocks are not the rocks in the formation and the site???

Then I know that some guy dated it using Orions belt as a means of dating (but with that said who even says its meant to alight with Orions belt) but no the less for argument sake lets say it does, that dating as you pointed out says between 25 000 years and 200 000 years BIG gap there to play with.

Other than that i don't think any further dating has been done, I will look into seeing what I can find on the matter.

Again thanks for the reply

[Peter Cox]

It seems the walls of the enclosures are just over 8 ft. tall (2.5 mt.) ... since when do you need something that tall to keep cattle in? They would keep many animals out however?

When i look at this i see the small enclosures with stick and grass roofs... and the larger enclosures as open areas.. Have they detected any hearths despite the proposed age of the place ?

Thats a good point you make, the size of it is what gets me to and the extent of them, thats a LOT of cattle if its cattle kralls.

Im not sure if they have detected anything, they have not unearthed much either, in fact I dont believe that any real study other than the Tellinger's wild theory have been conducted.

I know that in a close by area there is "the cradle of human kind" where some believe our not so cute and cuddle homo(noids) came from before we evolved into what we are today. Then in the Cape about 1432km from here (or the site rather) there is the blomos cave where they claim to have found ancient tools and pain pre dating many of 10's of thousands of years.

But still the exact nature of all this is up in the air but most people think cattle kralls. Im just not 100% sure what I think, Iknow its not that M.Tellinger is correct, but as i said its just the size and amount of them that gets me.

Thanks a million for your post much appreciated.

[Abramelin]

Hi there,

I remember a while ago something about the way the rocks had eroded put the date some 75 000 + years old or even older but cant remember (i might be making this up or mistaking it with something else) but I cant see how rocks eroding can give a date as that says how old the rocks are not the rocks in the formation and the site???

Then I know that some guy dated it using Orions belt as a means of dating (but with that said who even says its meant to alight with Orions belt) but no the less for argument sake lets say it does, that dating as you pointed out says between 25 000 years and 200 000 years BIG gap there to play with.

Other than that i don't think any further dating has been done, I will look into seeing what I can find on the matter.

Again thanks for the reply

It would still be an interesting topic if these structures were 'only' 25,000 years old, or even a couple of thousand years.

Yes, this Bill Hollenbach was kind of very vague, lol. His dating sounded like 'it's between a long time ago and a goddamn long time ago".

Maybe it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything astronomical. You can always find a couple of stones that seem oriented on some star or a couple of stars.

I think the only way to establish the date of when those stones were put into their places is to take a sample of anything organic from under those stones and have it radiocarbon tested.

[Abramelin]

I would not be surprised if Tellinger had only asked Bill Hollenbach something like, "Suppose the stones in this ring were astronomically oriented, which stars could they have been oriented on, and at what time?"

OK, the guy does his utmost best, and comes up with a 'date'.

Then Tellinger gives us his very own swing to what he learned, and said that an astronomer dated the structure to such and such a date.

[Peter Cox]

It would still be an interesting topic if these structures were 'only' 25,000 years old, or even a couple of thousand years.

Yes, this Bill Hollenbach was kind of very vague, lol. His dating sounded like 'it's between a long time ago and a goddamn long time ago".

Maybe it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything astronomical. You can always find a couple of stones that seem oriented on some star or a couple of stars.

I think the only way to establish the date of when those stones were put into their places is to take a sample of anything organic from under those stones and have it radiocarbon tested.

Could not agree with you more.

But you right it would appear the way he dates it was "write down a number any number between 25 000 and 250 000 and that could be it" lol.

But yes even if the a few thousand years old it would be great, just wish someone would date them correctly and spend some time studying the things (i hope he doesn't have to wear a tin foil hat because of the alien influence in the area)

but im still fascinated by this and would love some answers.

Thanks for the post love ou take on the dating method. lol

[Abramelin]

I would not be surprised if Tellinger had only asked Bill Hollenbach something like, "Suppose the stones in this ring were astronomically oriented, which stars could they have been oriented on, and at what time?"

OK, the guy does his utmost best, and comes up with a 'date'.

Then Tellinger gives us his very own swing to what he learned, and said that an astronomer dated the structure to such and such a date.

The guy was obsessed with anything Sitchin and Nibiru, so anything old that he finds he will mangle beyond repair to fit into his pet theory.

[Peter Cox]

http://www.worldhistoria.com/adams-calender-structure-myth-or-reality_topic124707.html - nice read on the topic on a different site

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/africaadamscalendar.htm nice read too but here is an extract on the dating method

These widely varying estimates all come from the same source: Michael Tellinger.

'The first rough calculation was from at least 25,000 years ago. But new and more precise measurements kept increasing the age'...

The next calculation was presented by a '

master archaeoastronomer

' (

Bill Hollenbach?

(8)

) who unsurprisingly, wishes to remain anonymous for 'fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity'. The calculation was apparently based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years.

(2)

A further calculation in June 2009, suggested an age of at least 160,000 years, based on the rise of Orion 'flat on the horizon' but also on the 'erosion of dolerite stones' found at the site. Some pieces of the marker stones had been broken off and sat on the ground, exposed to natural erosion. When the pieces were put back together about 3 cm of stone had already been worn away. These calculation helped assess the age of the site by calculating the erosion rate of the dolerite.

(2)

'Our research has shown that the ancient ruins of South Africa and Zimbabwe go back to around 260,000 years the very first appearance of humans on Earth'.

(3)

At present (2011), the site has not undergone any official dating procedures.

I made the best part in bold and underlined it lol

Thanks Peter

[Abramelin]

From your second link:

It is regularly claimed that 'Adam's Calendar' is located on the same line of longitude as Giza and Great Zimbabwe. Using Google Earth's lat/long grid Giza is approximately 45km west of the nearest Adam's Calendar longitude line.

While the following images certainly suggest a human provenance for the stones, there is no evidence to support Tellinger's claims that they are '75,000 years or older'.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/africaadamscalendar.htm

About this Bill Hollenbach:

His life passion is astronomy. Now 56 and retired, he has worked at a nuclear power plant and in telecommunications, and enjoys a minor reputation as an inventor. In the 1980's, he helped established the Cederberg Observatory outside Cape Town. Two years ago, with time on his hands, he came to the Rhino and Lion Reserve, a smallish park that runs a big-cat breeding program and stages educational events for local schools, and found a calling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/us/venus-dances-across-sun-slow-motion-earth-dwellers-see-history-unfold-south.html

[Peter Cox]

From your second link:

It is regularly claimed that 'Adam's Calendar' is located on the same line of longitude as Giza and Great Zimbabwe. Using Google Earth's lat/long grid Giza is approximately 45km west of the nearest Adam's Calendar longitude line.

While the following images certainly suggest a human provenance for the stones, there is no evidence to support Tellinger's claims that they are '75,000 years or older'.

http://www.ancient-w...amscalendar.htm

About this Bill Hollenbach:

His life passion is astronomy. Now 56 and retired, he has worked at a nuclear power plant and in telecommunications, and enjoys a minor reputation as an inventor. In the 1980's, he helped established the Cederberg Observatory outside Cape Town. Two years ago, with time on his hands, he came to the Rhino and Lion Reserve, a smallish park that runs a big-cat breeding program and stages educational events for local schools, and found a calling.

http://www.nytimes.c...fold-south.html

Thanks

See this is my issue, no real science has been conducted on the site. So its been said its cattle Krall but not even that has been proved (or disproved) we (as in South African Government) need to spend some time and money and get to the bottom of this. It could after all be a massive leap in our own countries heritage and at the very worst be a cool in-site into the migration of South African Bantu people.

But i suppose when your Goverment cant find R100 million missing from the education fund for one province and the presidents home upgrades cost 150million and you buy a new private plane for R2.2billion when your people are starving what are the chances of them funding a science exhibition to find out the truth of your countries (or part of) history.

Sad times we live in indeed.

Thanks again for your post and it revels loads about the people making the claims...

[RodT]

Hi, I'm following this topic with interest because I have been to Adams Calendar with Michael Tellinger, read his books, listened to his talks, and heard his personal philosophy. I agree, he makes incredible claims, BUT, there is definitely something going on there. The site is definitely a calendar. There are stones placed in a circle at N, S, E & W. The 'Horus Stone' has definitely been carved (it has a concave shape and chips off the inside edge) and two upright central marker stones cast a shadow that allows one to follow the annual movements of the sun. There are even stones with carved channels in them. And it is fairly certain that none of this was done by the modern, colonial civilisation in SA, nor by the Bantu peoples before them. Clearly Adams Calendar is ancient. But to put a date to it is pure speculation. Tellinger uses 3 reasons to cite 240 000 years old (his revised claim after his initial 75 000 year claim): 1. The supposed line-up of the constellation of Orion over three presumed previously upright stones near the Horus stone, 2. the weathering of the stones (ie amount of oxidation since they were supposedly worked), and 3. the Sumerian text interpretations of Sitchin, so he does have his evidence, disputable as it may be.

Now this is the only calendar that has been found in a vast area dotted with thousands, if not millions of anomalous stone circles (estimated at 10 million from extrapolations from aerial surveys). These circles are enclosures with no entrances, which immediately excludes the 'cattle kraal' theory. Cattle would not be driven up and down a ramp every day in an out of enclosures with walls, some over 3 metres high. The cattle kraal theory is postulated by 'science' to make these stone circles fit in with their theory of the evolution and migration of humans in the area. The 'how-could-it-possibly-be-anything-else' method is not very scientific yet the only university study around says that these circles were made within the last thousand years by the Bantu people. These circles remain anomalous unless you invoke the Sumerian text story, in which case they fit perfectly. The Abzu, in the hot southern lands where Enki had his gold mining operation, could very well be southern Africa, where much evidence of ancient mining exists and there is a vast network of stone circles throughout. These lands were reportedly favoured by Antu, wife of Anu, and there is still a people here who call themselves the Ba'antu (= the people of Antu). The millions of ancient stone circles in southern Africa, often connected by strange 'roads' or channels are highly anomalous to science, yet fit the Sumerian story perfectly. There are many valid criticisms of Sitchins work, yet no one, since The Twelfth Planet of 1976, has come up with an alternative mythology (= history). The Sumerian King List goes back 240 000 years before the flood, so we dont have to rely on Sitchins interpretations to be able to work out when these kings ruled on Earth. The Sumerians (Enki et al) mined gold on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, so perhaps all the stone circles in southern Africa, including Adams Calendar, are indeed evidence of civilisation here 240 000 years ago. In my view, the evidence certainly supports Tellinger's claims above those of the claims of the scientific fraternity. And he is an enthusiastic proponent of knowledge, truth and freedom, so I do not doubt his motives for making wild, sensationalist claims. Having an ancient calendar in southern Africa is wild and sensational enough without having to claim that it is where the seven birth-mothers birthed the human race. Michael is a great guy and has an amazing 'contributionism' philosophy, but if he wants to be taken seriously he should tone down his outlandish claims and leave people with the question rather than the answer. What is Adam's Calendar? Does the evidence suggest that this collection of rocks is a 240 000 year old timepiece in southern Africa at the heart of the Anunnaki gold-mining operation, deliberately placed on the 31st parallel, along with Great Zimbabwe ruins and the Giza pyramids? So far the Sumerian text story is the most plausible human history that I have heard, but I do keep my critical mind open to new evidence and revised claims.

[Peter Cox]

Hi, I'm following this topic with interest because I have been to Adams Calendar with Michael Tellinger, read his books, listened to his talks, and heard his personal philosophy. I agree, he makes incredible claims, BUT, there is definitely something going on there. The site is definitely a calendar. There are stones placed in a circle at N, S, E & W. The 'Horus Stone' has definitely been carved (it has a concave shape and chips off the inside edge) and two upright central marker stones cast a shadow that allows one to follow the annual movements of the sun. There are even stones with carved channels in them. And it is fairly certain that none of this was done by the modern, colonial civilisation in SA, nor by the Bantu peoples before them. Clearly Adams Calendar is ancient. But to put a date to it is pure speculation. Tellinger uses 3 reasons to cite 240 000 years old (his revised claim after his initial 75 000 year claim): 1. The supposed line-up of the constellation of Orion over three presumed previously upright stones near the Horus stone, 2. the weathering of the stones (ie amount of oxidation since they were supposedly worked), and 3. the Sumerian text interpretations of Sitchin, so he does have his evidence, disputable as it may be.

Now this is the only calendar that has been found in a vast area dotted with thousands, if not millions of anomalous stone circles (estimated at 10 million from extrapolations from aerial surveys). These circles are enclosures with no entrances, which immediately excludes the 'cattle kraal' theory. Cattle would not be driven up and down a ramp every day in an out of enclosures with walls, some over 3 metres high. The cattle kraal theory is postulated by 'science' to make these stone circles fit in with their theory of the evolution and migration of humans in the area. The 'how-could-it-possibly-be-anything-else' method is not very scientific yet the only university study around says that these circles were made within the last thousand years by the Bantu people. These circles remain anomalous unless you invoke the Sumerian text story, in which case they fit perfectly. The Abzu, in the hot southern lands where Enki had his gold mining operation, could very well be southern Africa, where much evidence of ancient mining exists and there is a vast network of stone circles throughout. These lands were reportedly favoured by Antu, wife of Anu, and there is still a people here who call themselves the Ba'antu (= the people of Antu). The millions of ancient stone circles in southern Africa, often connected by strange 'roads' or channels are highly anomalous to science, yet fit the Sumerian story perfectly. There are many valid criticisms of Sitchins work, yet no one, since The Twelfth Planet of 1976, has come up with an alternative mythology (= history). The Sumerian King List goes back 240 000 years before the flood, so we dont have to rely on Sitchins interpretations to be able to work out when these kings ruled on Earth. The Sumerians (Enki et al) mined gold on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, so perhaps all the stone circles in southern Africa, including Adams Calendar, are indeed evidence of civilisation here 240 000 years ago. In my view, the evidence certainly supports Tellinger's claims above those of the claims of the scientific fraternity. And he is an enthusiastic proponent of knowledge, truth and freedom, so I do not doubt his motives for making wild, sensationalist claims. Having an ancient calendar in southern Africa is wild and sensational enough without having to claim that it is where the seven birth-mothers birthed the human race. Michael is a great guy and has an amazing 'contributionism' philosophy, but if he wants to be taken seriously he should tone down his outlandish claims and leave people with the question rather than the answer. What is Adam's Calendar? Does the evidence suggest that this collection of rocks is a 240 000 year old timepiece in southern Africa at the heart of the Anunnaki gold-mining operation, deliberately placed on the 31st parallel, along with Great Zimbabwe ruins and the Giza pyramids? So far the Sumerian text story is the most plausible human history that I have heard, but I do keep my critical mind open to new evidence and revised claims.

Wow - thanks for the post.

The main issue you will have with that is M.Tellinger has no formal qualification in ancient Sumerian or history for that matter. Im no expert i think the best person here to deal with the matter of ancient writings is KMT but I'm not sure about Sumerian and what the text say.

But to put a spin on the Sumerian Gods created man to dig up gold cause they didnt want to and then took pitty on them before destroying all of them in a flood is a bit to far fetched for me any way, I would need a full translation of the Sumerian texts too as maybe that was one mans interpretation of them.

HOWEVER with that said i have to agree "What is Adams calendar' question is the right one its the one that should be asked. The circles on their own without the calendar, is quite something even if they only 6000 years old that would still be amazing and fantastic. but to claim 240 000 thousand years makes it not believable, as the oldest structure that I can think of is some 11 000 years old,Gobekli tepe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe and we know very little about who built and made those.

So to claim the exact origins of of structures between 75 000 and 250 000 years old it madness with there being any official science or dating used in the field.

So yes its a fantastic notion and a great find but the main concern is what do we really know, take M.Tellinger out of the equitation and then look for the answer maybe?

Great point about the circles no entrance i did notice that on some of them and wondered the same thing.

Thanks again for posting.

Peter

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I am getting a bit confused now.... here he says the circle is 75,000 years old:

http://www.zuluplane...amscalendar.pdf

But wait, a bit further on in the pdf he claims:

The Johan Heine Stone Calendar

(affectionately called Adam’s

Calendar) has been dated by

astronomer Bill Hollenbach to be

between 25,000 and 150,000 years

old. We would place the actual

date closer to around 75,000

years, based on the movement

of the peoples in southern Africa

and the emergence of rock art

during that period. But it could

in fact be even older – dating

back to the dawn of Homo

sapiens some 250,000 years ago.

The guy who wrote the review is right: "could be" >>> "very possible"">>>> "it is fact" , lol.

Btw Peter, do you know if this 'calendar' has been dated? Not with guesswork, but with methods used in geology?

abramelin,, it is very difficult to date stonework

that is why - as an example, they cannot come to common agreement as to how old the sphinx is.

there are many other examples, too and many times other objects in ancient civilizations are used to do teh carbon dating

[Abramelin]

abramelin,, it is very difficult to date stonework

that is why - as an example, they cannot come to common agreement as to how old the sphinx is.

there are many other examples, too and many times other objects in ancient civilizations are used to do teh carbon dating

All they have to do is sample organic matter from under one of those standing stones, and then radiocarbon date it.

The Sphinx was very probably carved out of an already existing rock formation, and capstones were added to smooth things off.

These are two very different things.

[RodT]

It is very difficult to find organic matter under stone monuments, and then who has the money to date it, and it all has to be done under the auspices of some study grant from some university and who knows what other influences on the results...

Another thing to be aware of in orthodox archaeology is the use of the 'associated artefacts' principle, ie. that because organic matter or tools were found next to or associated with a stone monument, that this means that the stone was carved and placed by those people using those tools. Unless you are lucky enough to find organic matter or artefacts under a stone, you cannot say anything about any associated artefacts with respect to the carving and placing of the stone monument. It is pure speculation to associate any adjacent artefacts with the creation of the monument. The stones could have been carved and placed many many years previously. Until some comparative aging tests have been formulated and undertaken on the weathering of these stones, and some reputable data is forthcoming, we can say nothing about the true age of monuments like Adams Calendar, Stonehenge, and, in fact, all monumental stonework around the world that could well be evidence of the technology of the gods of ancient times.

And first Michael guessed 75 000 years ago, then 150 000, then 240 000, now its up to 260 000 years ago, as he finds out more information. Same as he guessed at how many stone circles were found in the area. His presentation includes a historical perspective and successive researchers have increased their estimate until Michael, with the help of pilot, Johan Heine, have used aerial surveys to come to their estimate (guess) (scientific study) of 10 million stone circles in southern Africa. And if these are evidence of the gold mining operations of Enki in the Abzu, then the oldest ones could well be even older than 260 000 years old.

[Abramelin]

Micheal Tellinger never came up with anything remotely resembling evidence. All he did was push the date further back to come close to the date Sitchin cooked up for his Annunaki from his Nibiru.

Sitchin was not a specialist in cuneiform or the Sumerian language, and he has been proven to fabricating stuff and creating very erroneous interpretations.

And it may be difficult to get organic matter from under a standing stone (they do it anyway), but better use a difficult method then fantisizing without control.

If funding for radiocarbon dating is a problem, then wait with conclusions and nice theories until it is no longer a problem, and serious research can be carried out.

[Peter Cox]

Micheal Tellinger never came up with anything remotely resembling evidence. All he did was push the date further back to come close to the date Sitchin cooked up for his Annunaki from his Nibiru.

Sitchin was not a specialist in cuneiform or the Sumerian language, and he has been proven to fabricating stuff and creating very erroneous interpretations.

And it may be difficult to get organic matter from under a standing stone (they do it anyway), but better use a difficult method then fantisizing without control.

If funding for radiocarbon dating is a problem, then wait with conclusions and nice theories until it is no longer a problem, and serious research can be carried out.

Could not agree with you more. The issue is you can push it as far back as 500000000 years ago if he wanted to the problem comes in at best its a guess and not even a well educated one.

To tie stichen - who again as mentioned was a bullsh1tter and at best a con artist, again just does not make sense. (KMT_sesh where are you?) maybe you can shed some light here on the ancient text that Stichen translated and if it holds any meaning or truth.

So his base is from a lire, based on a not good translation and a dating method that hold no real science. is a picture starting to form here?

If I tell you that i read a document that said Africa had a city made of pure diamonds and the document is 6000 years old and you find what could be an old diamond mine (even thou the value of diamonds is a pretty new thing) you cant really tie the 2 together when other scholars say my doc does not mention Diamonds and i have been caught fabricating things before. Do you see what Im getting at?

Sure your find of what could be an ancient site is GREAT and FANTASTIC by itself but to try and fabricate its age using guess work to match what I told you I read would just be silly.

thats my point of view anyway.

Thanks