news.bbc.co.uk — BBC news reports on the finding of a lost city underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India that could be over 9,000 years old. Related links: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EE02Df02.html, http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm.
Oct 10, 2006 View in Crawl 4
xenoliteOct 11, 2006
Maybe it hasn't been in mainstream news because people's heads would explode.Things are kept simple for a reason (sigh).Perhaps people have been around for a long time, but we keep starting over because we destroy most of the planet in some war or accident and we just don't learn.Maybe it's localized and the advanced civilization destroys itself in an accident or power struggle. (Atlantis)I believe that humans have been around for quite some time, because of these findings and others like foreign objects embedded in rocks.
treboryelaehOct 11, 2006
Which brings up the question:Why hasn't anybody computed where the shorelines were at the last ice age and gone searching for port cities in those areas?Most of the large cities of modern times are by water, either ocean or river, so it would make sense to look for ruins at the sea levels of ice age times.There are hints of long distance maritime trade in anciant times and the sailing technology to cross the oceans could have been created by peoples of the late ice age timeframe.Think of 1492 AD voyages occuring back at the end of the ice age and you begin to see the impact of finding ruins at the late ice age sea levels.Just a ponder...
djskitzyOct 11, 2006
So... I'm right then?
twangoOct 11, 2006
A reply to the 2002 'refutation' can be found here:<a class="user" href="http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm">http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm</a>and this long Graham Hanc**k (he's a diver) article is very detailed, with a lot of the evidence:<a class="user" href="http://www.grahamhanc**k.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1">http://www.grahamhanc**k.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1</a>On another page GH points out that coastal plains were inundated by ice-age melts from 17000BP to 7000BP ... and says we should't make up our minds until the entire continental shelf has been explored to 120 meters.<a class="user" href="http://www.grahamhanc**k.com/underworld">http://www.grahamhanc**k.com/underworld</a>Some of the stuff found there dates to 13,000BP and even some to 31,000BP!
twangoOct 11, 2006
"Graham Hanc**k is a nut."Maybe. The NIOT evidence, though, is based in very up-to-date methods:<a class="user" href="http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm">http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm</a>
thedevilsdueOct 11, 2006
Interesting. I tried to do lexis search for more info but I'm not smart enough to get a VPN to work.The funny thing about archaeology is that politics are involved there too. If you find something that would ruffle feathers, you may have a hard road to hoe. Not saying that it's the case here, though, just that the entrenched like to preserve the status-quo.
fquednauOct 12, 2006
@EssTee: I saw it in a TV report once, the site <a class="user" href="http://www.plim.org/sphinx.htm">http://www.plim.org/sphinx.htm</a> seems to inform a bit on this. It states two arguments that were also explained in the show (erosion due to water that suggests that the Sphynx already existed when the climate was quite different, alignment with a certain star configuration that only makes sense a lot earlier than 2500BC). Another argument that came up in the show was that the body simply looks a lot more battered than the head and the head seems too small in comparison with the body, suggesting that the Sphynx had once a different head and the head was reworked by the Egyptian dynasties.
anagogeOct 12, 2006
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought this was going to be a spoiler for season 3 of Lost.
supafromanDec 20, 2007
Vegita, what does the scouter say about his power level?It's OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!What 9000!?!?!?!?!?