Spy Pics Reveal Ancient Settlements (Syria

AUSTRALIAN researchers studying declassified spy satellite images have found widespread remains of ancient human settlements dating back 130,000 years in Syria.

The photographs were taken by United States military surveillance satellites operating under the CIA and defence-led Corona program in the late 1960s. The team of researchers travelled to the Euphrates River Valley in April and June and searched sites they had painstakingly identified using the images, which were only declassified in the late 1990s.

Group leader Mandy Mottram, a PhD student at the Australian National University's School of Archaeology and Anthropology, said the evidence of human life found in the area included a hilltop Byzantine basilica, a 24 hectare fortified town dating to the Early Bronze Age, Early Islamic pottery factories and a hilltop complex of megalithic tombs.

Ms Mottram said the researchers' trained eyes could spot small changes in the landscape, such as a different soil colour, that could indicate a former human settlement.

The images are particularly valuable because they show the landscape prior to its present rapid agricultural development.

"It's the guide for us to go out and have a look in that specific area," she said.

"It's been actually really brilliantly helpful for us. We've had a really, really high strike rate, I would say about 95 per cent."

Some of the artefacts found could dramatically change the way historians think of the area's early inhabitants, Ms Mottram said.

For example, contrary to a common belief that rural civilisations were experiencing economic and social decline from the mid-6th century, the team found evidence of widespread prosperity including many settlements and large quantities of pottery.

The researchers hope to establish the first complete record of human occupation in the area, beginning with the arrival from Africa of early human groups up to one million years ago.

They have already found tools from the Middle Palaeolithic period that are between 130,000 and 40,000 years old, and could have been made by either Neanderthals or early modern humans, as well as a few Acheulian tools that could date back several hundred thousand years.

Ms Mottram said the group was still analysing images of the items and structures they found and hoped to return to Syria next April if they secured funding.

Aren't Neanderthals a false theoretic link evolutionists try to impose to claim one species (monkey) evolved into man, to try to deny the truth that instead man was created in the image of God?

1. Neanderthals were a sister species of Homo Sapiens and not on a direct evolutionary line with him.

2. No one tries to "impose" anything. The evidence exists whether you wish to accept it or not.

3. "Monkey" is not a species. "Monkey" is a term for a group of tailed primates.

4. No one tries to "deny" anything. See #2, above.

Making such offhand comments as you made might work among a group of friends or other like-minded individuals. However, when made on a public forum containing people who actually know what they are talking about makes you come across as ignorant at best. Please, for your sake, do a quick Google search before posting something you know will be controversial. You may learn something, find something to support your position, or be dissuaded from posting altogether.

1. Who "decided" that bones they found must be a "sister species" to man? Someone who did not believe in the value of man as created in God's image, or they would not try to devalue man and upgrade the Neanderthal by association.

And it is a feeble attempt to devalue GOD: if Neanderthal are our "sisters", and we are in the image of God, then God is like a Ne_____. No, I can't even write it.

2. There IS no "direct evolutionary line" with man! Man did not evolve! It does NOT exist as you claim.
There is no evidence FOR man evolving from one species to another, from a tiny little amoeba or whatever into into into into into into poof! Man! Nope, NO evidence.

3. The godless liberal worldview would elevate the monkeys as you have, thinking some sap will say "ohhh they're "primates" ohhh so are we, oh I see." Again fallacy by association, and purposed deception.

4. If you think TToE is not "imposed" upon our schools, you are living in the dark ages.

5. "See #2, above," you said.
Another troll ploy, to refer to a post that has nothing to do with the subject, as if giving a reference, hoping the person won't do the research and check. ZOT!

6. Your next troll ploy is typical, telling me to no longer speak here unless I agree with your trying to indoctrinate other readers with lies

7. Perhaps your knowledge would be deeper if you did not think a "quick Google search" is where knowledge lies. Instead, God Himself says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".

The godless refuse that rightful reverence, and hack by hack try to demean the value of man who is created in God's image.

Under the guise of scholarship lies continue to get advanced. Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but he spews lies.

1. Who "decided" that bones they found must be a "sister species" to man? Someone who did not believe in the value of man as created in God's image, or they would not try to devalue man and upgrade the Neanderthal by association.

Researchers studying the morphology of Neanderthal remains and recovered Neanderthal DNA. You'd be surprised at the huge amount of evidence available.

And it is a feeble attempt to devalue GOD: if Neanderthal are our "sisters", and we are in the image of God, then God is like a Ne_____. No, I can't even write it.

So, which person looks like God? Does God have boobs? A penis? Is He blonde, brunette, red-headed? Is He an ectomorph or a mesomorph? Is He white, brown, black, red or yellow? Just what does "made in the image of God" mean?

2. There IS no "direct evolutionary line" with man! Man did not evolve! It does NOT exist as you claim.
There is no evidence FOR man evolving from one species to another, from a tiny little amoeba or whatever into into into into into into poof! Man! Nope, NO evidence.

Man did evolve. Your inability to accept this does not nullify this fact. As for evidence, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of remains of at least a dozen Australopithecine and Homo species stretching back more than 3 million years spanning the spectrum from nearly ape-like to modern man.

3. The godless liberal worldview would elevate the monkeys as you have, thinking some sap will say "ohhh they're "primates" ohhh so are we, oh I see." Again fallacy by association, and purposed deception.

Monkeys are monkeys; man is man. Just because we are more or less related does not change this fact. We are (very) distantly related to cows, but that doesn't stop me from eating a hamburger on occasion.

4. If you think TToE is not "imposed" upon our schools, you are living in the dark ages.

The Theory of Evolution is the current state of the art in science. It is the schools' duty to teach science in science classes.

5. "See #2, above," you said.
Another troll ploy, to refer to a post that has nothing to do with the subject, as if giving a reference, hoping the person won't do the research and check. ZOT!

The #2 I referred to was the second point in my post.

6. Your next troll ploy is typical, telling me to no longer speak here unless I agree with your trying to indoctrinate other readers with lies

No. I said educate yourself so that, if you still disagree with evolution at least you wouldn't come across as pig-ignorant when addressing your gripes. There are actually a couple (read: "exactly two") creationists on these threads who've made some effort to educate themselves when it comes to evolution. They're still wrong, but they do have some idea of what they are talking about. You don't.

7. Perhaps your knowledge would be deeper if you did not think a "quick Google search" is where knowledge lies. Instead, God Himself says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".

No, study is the beginning of knowledge. Fear of the Lord has a tendency to keep people from actually learning anything for fear of enraging God. A quick Google search wasn't proposed to make you an expert. It was proposed to get you to see what the state of the art is on this subject so that you could phrase your objections from a position of knowledge, rather than ignorance.

The godless refuse that rightful reverence, and hack by hack try to demean the value of man who is created in God's image.

If God is the omnipotent and omniscient being He is said to be, nothing mere mortals could ever do would offend Him.

Under the guise of scholarship lies continue to get advanced. Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but he spews lies.

Nope. And the fact that you think the study and understanding of the universe is some sort of Satanic plot scares the beejabbers out of me. It's basically the same attitude espoused by the fundamentalist Islamofascists in their railings against the West.

1. "recovered Neanderthal DNA... You'd be surprised at the huge amount of evidence available."

I recovered a tiny piece of yesterday's french fries on the floor. Researchers studying its morphology found it has an exterior and interior, has internal molecules, many of which are also core to human existence: oxygen and carbon and nitrogen and trace minerals. So therefore, it must be your "sister species" of human.

No! Because bone findings of "neanderthal" has SOME similar DNA, it must therefore be related to humans? Wrong conclusion from the premeses.

No, there is NO evidence of a supposed transition of supposed other creatures to man.

2. You'd be surprised at the huge amount of evidence available.

And then you list none.

3. which person looks like God? ... Just what does "made in the image of God" mean?

Actually very good questions! So where would we go to find out? If we look in nature, we only can see that God is powerful and exists. But we don't know what He looks like or what the "image of God" is unless He would reveal that to us.

Which He has done. 1)Recorded in 66 books called the Bible; and , 2) By assuming human flesh Himself, when the Son of God chose to become man. Jesus said, "You have seen me, you've seen the Father." The "image of God" is explained in God's teachings.

4.at least a dozen Australopithecine and Homo species

And there are Russet potatoes, Idaho, Baking, Red potatoes, let's see, would Sweet Potatoes count? They all need water to grow, humans need water, so therefore, we are potatos!

Archaeological findings can be interpreted many different ways. It doesn't mean there can't be a correct one, but conclusions reached are often speculations and theories. Guesses, and that's what they have taught you. Their claims have been refuted one by one, but I doubt if even your public library would carry those books.

There still is NO evidence to show that humans somehow evolved from lower animal species to us now. Not ONE evidence showing ah, here's the transition from amoeba to snake, to warthog, to monkey, to gorilla to man!

5. Monkeys are monkeys; man is man. Just because we are more or less related does not change this fact.

Just because you call us related, does not make it true. At least in my family lineage! ;-)

We have a fallen mind, which cannot think rationally and which does not want truth prior to God changing us through Christ. What seems rational to you, simply is not, because God Himself has stated differently: that He created the animals, and then He created man after His own image, something distinct from ALL animals.

6. The Theory of Evolution is the current state of the art in science.

I'm not trying to be mean here, because many of us fell for these same lines, but you are just flat wrong. It's like midievel Christians saying the sun revolved around the earth. When that was disproven, they had to go back and see where they had been misinterpreting things.

TToE was a theory, and the theory has been disproven, but why should that evidence be announced when Professors can actually get money and have a career to teach it? Why should they present all the contrary research, when they would lose their income in doing so?

What evidence you ask? That there IS NO evidence for transitional evolution between species, culminating in man.

There is a built in hatred of God in fallen mankind, because all men know He exists, so they rarely want to do anything which would support Biblical content.

7. "educate yourself so that, if you still disagree with evolution at least you wouldn't come across as pig-ignorant"

Again, typical godless liberal methodology of name calling. You also make the uneducated statement, since you do not know me or my educational levels, to claim that I am not educated on this issue. That is also called, lying and public slander. You have not proven one of my statements false, where the contrary has been done by me to your claims.

Because this is so indoctrinated into our culture, it is a hard concept to reliquish. But imagine, if you can, would the world come to an end if you realized Darwin's theory was wrong? Would your personal worth as a human being have any less value? Actually, it might go up a notch because you'd finally be wanting truth over indoctrination.

Is it truly a conscious choice you want to be making, to stand against what God Himself says?

He doesn't require that you believe in Genesis, but He DOES require that you believe His Son died for your sins, and that you repent and turn to Him. Because we have such excellent evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead, proving His claims to being God, why not first look at THAT evidence? Then, because it will validate His claims, you can see what HIS view, as God, is on each issue.

And being God, He should know!

Did you ever look at any of the old trails in the area of Red Rock Canyon, OK?

The (three degrees by five degrees) area I am mapping now is almost more than a PC (and I) can handle (at the high level of detail at which I'm working) -- and I've had no cause to work that far north and west...yet...

Sounds like a fascinating place, though. In fact, I couldn't resist taking a peek and "ghosting in" a couple of possible candidate traces crossing the canyon. (Too bad the photo was made at midday in the summer (almost no shadows). A winter shot would have made those traces out across the plowed field to the west of the airporrt runway really stand out... (Of course, if I'd been really serious about this, I would have developed a custom "grad" filter to enhance the visibility...)

I highlighted the most likely trail in pale (almost too pale) yellow, and another (toward the botom) in pink. I also tinted in (in purple) an old railroad grade that ran through the canyon... If I were actually mapping the area, I would consider this just clues as to where to look (and walk with the GPS receiver in hand) when I actually got on site...

If you would like to see the unmodified aerial photo, it is on Terraserver. By clicking on the tab at the top of the page, you can also get a topo map -- but I'd suggest zooming out a bit, because the Terraserver topo maps at this high magnification are prettty ragged.

FYI, I located the site (and got the targeted link to Terraserver) using USGNIS (The USGS's Geographic Names Information System) -- and that's also where I got the little inset map (with the "red dot marks the spot") from the Census Bureau's "Tiger" Server.

FWIW, I normally wouldn't have put this much effort into a mere FR response but I was 'exercising' a new rev of Canvas, my "workhorse" graphics/GIS software. And, besides, fellow ex-USAF troops deserve a little special consideration... '-)

(WayneM, I hope this gives you some "starting points", too...)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.