Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Crookshanks

Flat Earth and Tartaria

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Crookshanks

I like to peruse youtube now and again and I came across a whole load of videos on Flat Earth and a place called Tartaria, which is now Russia apparently. What people are alleging is that the history of the world has been altered so that it looks like there was no such place or empire and that Tartaria never existed.  However there was, according to these videos, a large area of land in what is now Russia, and a huge part of North America which was populated by giants. These giants are Tartarians. They were said to be as tall as 2 and half miles high. Really?  They are also saying that Greco Roman architecture came from Tartaria and not from the Roman Empire as we are told in our history books.  If its true it turns everything on its head.  I don't know about the whole flat Earth thing though I mean... that would mean that the arctic and the antarctic might be the same land.  They are also saying that a mud flood buried half the buildings the Tartarians built and the reason a lot of them have huge doors and ceilings is because the people using them were much taller than us. I kind of thought the parts of the buildings underground were foundations and that they built big in order to be grandiose and show off a bit and over awe people.  What do you all think of it? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)

Howdy Crookshanks

Welcome to Ancient Mysteries & Alternative history although I see you've been around nearly 3 years.

Well given that 'flat earth' is a non-starter of an idea I think you can safely say any ideas based on it are fatuous also. Tartaria is the Latin word for Tartary which did exist as a 'region or territory'.

Not full of giants however.

Tartary and Tartaria have been used in other contexts also.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartary

Edited by Hanslune
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
33 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

I like to peruse youtube now and again and I came across a whole load of videos on Flat Earth and a place called Tartaria, which is now Russia apparently. What people are alleging is that the history of the world has been altered so that it looks like there was no such place or empire and that Tartaria never existed.  However there was, according to these videos, a large area of land in what is now Russia, and a huge part of North America which was populated by giants. These giants are Tartarians. They were said to be as tall as 2 and half miles high. Really?  They are also saying that Greco Roman architecture came from Tartaria and not from the Roman Empire as we are told in our history books.  If its true it turns everything on its head.  I don't know about the whole flat Earth thing though I mean... that would mean that the arctic and the antarctic might be the same land.  They are also saying that a mud flood buried half the buildings the Tartarians built and the reason a lot of them have huge doors and ceilings is because the people using them were much taller than us. I kind of thought the parts of the buildings underground were foundations and that they built big in order to be grandiose and show off a bit and over awe people.  What do you all think of it? 

Tartar is a term used for Turkish speakers and Tartaria was a "catch all" phrase for the Central Asian and Pontic Caspian Steppes or where ever Turks lived.

There was never any giants in North America or interaction with Europe or Asia prior to 1492.  The "Columbian Exchange" negates it.  

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crookshanks

Hey all

 

I am aware of the official history surrounding the whole tartaria thing lol and the world seeing as I am half way through my degree and all. I just wondered what people thought of the possibility that the official history is not the actual history. Doing the degree we are given sources to look at, and are told to make up our own minds about it and we tend to sort of come up with the same sorts of things.  However if you are creative I suppose you could come up with an alternative history, if you had the right sources.  Right?  Trouble is, how do we know what sources are reliable and what isn't. I mean, you could look at the foundations of a building and say yes its just foundations but then ask why?  Why would they have a window that is half in and half out of the ground.  Why to foundations even need windows? Little things like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
48 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

I like to peruse youtube now and again and I came across a whole load of videos on Flat Earth and a place called Tartaria, which is now Russia apparently. What people are alleging is that the history of the world has been altered so that it looks like there was no such place or empire and that Tartaria never existed.  However there was, according to these videos, a large area of land in what is now Russia, and a huge part of North America which was populated by giants. These giants are Tartarians. They were said to be as tall as 2 and half miles high. Really?  They are also saying that Greco Roman architecture came from Tartaria and not from the Roman Empire as we are told in our history books.  If its true it turns everything on its head.  I don't know about the whole flat Earth thing though I mean... that would mean that the arctic and the antarctic might be the same land.  They are also saying that a mud flood buried half the buildings the Tartarians built and the reason a lot of them have huge doors and ceilings is because the people using them were much taller than us. I kind of thought the parts of the buildings underground were foundations and that they built big in order to be grandiose and show off a bit and over awe people.  What do you all think of it? 

Tartaria is Mongolia and the Khanate.  The Europeans thought that the Mongols had emerged from the underworld of Tartarus to "scourge the world", hence they called them Tartars.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

 I just wondered what people thought of the possibility that the official history is not the actual history.

NOPE! 

I studied the archaeology and cultures of the Steppe. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

NOPE! 

I studied the archaeology and cultures of the Steppe. 

Now THAT is an interesting topic. I have certainly done what I can to read up on it. I had a good chat with a Romanian Professor who was an expert on the subject, and how it played into the Volkswandrung and the end of the Roman Empire.  I am presently looking for good source material on the White Huns.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
1 hour ago, Crookshanks said:

I like to peruse youtube now and again and I came across a whole load of videos on Flat Earth and a place called Tartaria, which is now Russia apparently. What people are alleging is that the history of the world has been altered so that it looks like there was no such place or empire and that Tartaria never existed.  However there was, according to these videos, a large area of land in what is now Russia, and a huge part of North America which was populated by giants. These giants are Tartarians. They were said to be as tall as 2 and half miles high. Really?  They are also saying that Greco Roman architecture came from Tartaria and not from the Roman Empire as we are told in our history books.  If its true it turns everything on its head.  I don't know about the whole flat Earth thing though I mean... that would mean that the arctic and the antarctic might be the same land.  They are also saying that a mud flood buried half the buildings the Tartarians built and the reason a lot of them have huge doors and ceilings is because the people using them were much taller than us. I kind of thought the parts of the buildings underground were foundations and that they built big in order to be grandiose and show off a bit and over awe people.  What do you all think of it? 

Did your source say "2.5 miles" or "2.5m"?

If the latter, then I expect they meant 2.5 metres - which is unlikely, but at least more plausible than 2.5 miles. Remember, there aren't many countries that use those quaint measurements known as "miles".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crookshanks

It definately said 2.5 miles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
9 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Now THAT is an interesting topic. I have certainly done what I can to read up on it. I had a good chat with a Romanian Professor who was an expert on the subject, and how it played into the Volkswandrung and the end of the Roman Empire.  I am presently looking for good source material on the White Huns.

I'll dig around. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
27 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

Hey all

 

I am aware of the official history surrounding the whole tartaria thing lol and the world seeing as I am half way through my degree and all. I just wondered what people thought of the possibility that the official history is not the actual history. Doing the degree we are given sources to look at, and are told to make up our own minds about it and we tend to sort of come up with the same sorts of things.  However if you are creative I suppose you could come up with an alternative history, if you had the right sources.  Right?  Trouble is, how do we know what sources are reliable and what isn't. I mean, you could look at the foundations of a building and say yes its just foundations but then ask why?  Why would they have a window that is half in and half out of the ground.  Why to foundations even need windows? Little things like that. 

Why don't you link to an image of what you are referring too. Depending on the situation you may be alluding to buildings that have been partially buried by an accumulation of  soil after construction.

Sources, sources are like people - who can you trust or not trust. One of our folks here Kenemet can answer that in fine style for you.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crookshanks

Image result for Tartarian mud flood architecture

 

Ok well here's a building that clearly had that first floor underground. Its got windows, its got doors. What's the point of having windows and doors if its all underground?  You don't need them right?  Here's another one. 

 

Image result for Tartarian mud flood buildings

 

There's underground levels with openings in them.. doors.. windows? They have no need for them. 

 

Related image

 

Like WTF?  I mean ... sure there might be another explanation for these so called Tartarian buildings right?  I mean.. even if they aren't Tartarian something must have happened that we have no idea about. These buildings ...these foundations don't need doors or windows but lo and behold there they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
9 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

Ok well here's a building that clearly had that first floor underground. Its got windows, its got doors. What's the point of having windows and doors if its all underground?  You don't need them right?  Here's another one. 

 

How about some human remains of the Tart People. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
8 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

Image result for Tartarian mud flood architecture

 

Ok well here's a building that clearly had that first floor underground. Its got windows, its got doors. What's the point of having windows and doors if its all underground?  You don't need them right?  Here's another one. 

There's underground levels with openings in them.. doors.. windows? They have no need for them. 

Like WTF?  I mean ... sure there might be another explanation for these so called Tartarian buildings right?  I mean.. even if they aren't Tartarian something must have happened that we have no idea about. These buildings ...these foundations don't need doors or windows but lo and behold there they are. 

Just a suggestion when linking to something it is usually a good idea to provide the actual link too.

Older buildings in cities will be lower down because people tend to repair roads and other areas by ADDING material not taking it away, so over time the original structure ends up lower. The mudbrick cities of the Middle East were notorious for this so much so they developed into Tells. Many western cities also have the similar thing happenings. It happens too in the USA they repair roads by repairing the original but don't remove it - so it gets higher over time.

The other image didn't show windows.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crookshanks

yeah I think they said possibly photoshop or fake didn't they?  Trouble is with these sources.. they can all be fakes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
45 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

It definately said 2.5 miles. 

Impossible because of the Earth`s gravity and the corresponding need for energy/food.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crookshanks

I like to entertain the possibility that what we think we know is just what we're told to believe. I mean.. just because what we reason to be the most likely, is the most likely doesn't mean that's exactly the way it was.  So I look at these things and yeah the evidence is sketchy at best, but I wonder about history. Even things like the British Empire which there is so much evidence for could have been faked, even if its a huge fake. I know.. what difference will it make to our lives now? I always get asked that and I'm like.. its not about that its just entertaining the possibility that we're wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
26 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

There's underground levels with openings in them.. doors.. windows? They have no need for them.

Related image

...these foundations don't need doors or windows but lo and behold there they are. 

I do not see any doors or windows below the level of the fence. What I see is a building complex on a pile foundation. The black dots seem to be internal fasteners within the pile foundation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
2 hours ago, Crookshanks said:

I like to peruse youtube now and again and I came across a whole load of videos on Flat Earth and a place called Tartaria, which is now Russia apparently. What people are alleging is that the history of the world has been altered so that it looks like there was no such place or empire and that Tartaria never existed.  

So tell me this - what would the world look like were the above not true? The answer is obviously "as it does today". You could say there is a mind-control conspiracy that wiped everyone's minds an hour ago and replaced it with the reality we currently see. But that in itself is not an answer, because there is no question in the first place. Does that make sense?

Sorry, it's a bank holiday, it's 90 outside and I'm one very strong cider in already.

2 hours ago, Crookshanks said:

However there was, according to these videos, a large area of land in what is now Russia, and a huge part of North America which was populated by giants. These giants are Tartarians. They were said to be as tall as 2 and half miles high. Really?

No, not "really". Humans are the size they are because that is the size they can be. A human even 5 metres high would be crushed under their own density. Basics physics innit.

2 hours ago, Crookshanks said:

hey are also saying that Greco Roman architecture came from Tartaria and not from the Roman Empire as we are told in our history books.  If its true it turns everything on its head.

Again - this is an answer to a question that doesn't exist. The history and provenance of "Greco Roman architecture" is very well known. They could have at least chosen something a little more obscure, like Atlantean pinball machine design.

2 hours ago, Crookshanks said:

I don't know about the whole flat Earth thing though I mean... that would mean that the arctic and the antarctic might be the same land. 

The earth isn't flat. And the Arctic and Antarctica being the "same land" would be... er... a kind of inverse torus planet? I can't even visualise that. Like I say, one cider in.

2 hours ago, Crookshanks said:

 They are also saying that a mud flood buried half the buildings the Tartarians built and the reason a lot of them have huge doors and ceilings is because the people using them were much taller than us. I kind of thought the parts of the buildings underground were foundations and that they built big in order to be grandiose and show off a bit and over awe people.  What do you all think of it? 

Which buildings sorry?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Crookshanks said:

I just wondered what people thought of the possibility that the official history is not the actual history

There is no such thing as the "official history" of anything. It is no a political statement. History is a collection of works by many millions of people. Some disagree, some challenge each other, some contradict. There is a "generally accepted" version of each part of history, but there is no one stamping a document that says "official history of Russia". 

Hmmm, actually, that last bit might not be true.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Crookshanks said:

There's underground levels with openings in them.. doors.. windows? They have no need for them

Related image

Like WTF?  I mean ... sure there might be another explanation for these so called Tartarian buildings right?  I mean.. even if they aren't Tartarian something must have happened that we have no idea about.

Only morons would call the building complex a "Tartarian Building". The image above was taken in Paris in the 70s, showing construction works at the new Châtelet–Les Halles train/Metro station, see link.

Edited by toast
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Crookshanks said:

Image result for Tartarian mud flood architecture

 

Ok well here's a building that clearly had that first floor underground. Its got windows, its got doors. What's the point of having windows and doors if its all underground?  You don't need them right?  Here's another one. 

Basements have entrance hatches and ramps for deliveries, or, for example, most townhouses in London have a basement with windows, and a lightwell built into the pavement above. Additionally, some streets have "buried" sections, where the road and sidewalk have been raised, and the ground floors are covered over. Happened a lot in British cities for sure.

 

1 hour ago, Crookshanks said:

Related image

 

Those are foundations and piles, driven into the ground to support the weight of the buildings and stop them from moving around. The dark marks will be strengthening steel.

I've worked in comms in the built environment industries (town planning, architecture and construction) for the last 2 decades, and nothing here looks out of place.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
11 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

There is no such thing as the "official history" of anything. It is no a political statement. History is a collection of works by many millions of people. Some disagree, some challenge each other, so contradict. There is a "generally accepted" version of each part of history, but there is no one stamping a document that says "official history of Russia". 

Hmmm, actually, that last bit might not be true.

Yes in the case of some authoritarian or religiously oriented nations there IS an official history but it isn't usually accepted by those outside that country. History kinda works by consensus but not really. Everyone agrees there were Crusades but few agree on why they occurred, what they did, how they did it and what were the long term consequences.

  • Thanks 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.