Atlantis "sighted" again [Archive]

Checkmite

14th November 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Anyway, there must be some other source, or nobody would give as damn about looking for it.

There isn't any other source. Interest in Atlantis was non-existent until 19th century self-styled philosophers looked for evidence that mankind was older than the Bible gave it credit for "rediscovered" the story and decided to use it as proof (a la Ignatius Donnelly). Since then, mystics and wooic elements of every sort have latched onto Atlantis, turning it into an advanced civilization that used "crystal energy", airplanes and computers, and even space technology. You can generally tell the agenda by the story given.

The whole "found in the Mediterranean/Aegean" thing is simply the latest set of reiterations of a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to "meet the kooks halfway" by acknowledging Atlantis' physical existence while denying the vast and wonderful technology and culture attributed to it by the "believers". Notice that whenever "evidence" of Atlantis is shown by these scientists, it is in the form of "mundane" objects such as earthenware vessels.

But I again state that these attempts are misguided. The pots and artifacts found at the bottom of the Med belong to ancient civilizations, sure - the Minoans, the Cretians, and so forth. But the Minoans and the Cretians are the Minoans and the Cretians, not the Atlanteans. Following Plato's account leads us nowhere, because there was never an Atlantis; and all the slightly changed/ignored/corrected/"retranslated" evidence will not change the fact.

Checkmite

14th November 2004, 07:59 PM

People who dismiss this have not really done their homework, skeptics don't really understand. To understand the enigma of Atlantis you have to have good knowledge of ancient history, Biblical references, the Sumerian culture and their tablets and so on.

"Uh yeah well, those who don't believe me just don't understand all the technical doohickies and historical thingamajigs that I know everything about. Unless you're a genius like me, etc..."

What utter balderdash. I'd be willing to bet the only "Sumerian tablets" this guy knows anything about are the ones the out-of-context snippets he thinks describe "Atlantis" came from.

And "Biblical references"? That's great. Nearly everybody has a frickin' Bible. How about a verse or two to let us know where to look?

c4ts

14th November 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
There isn't any other source. Interest in Atlantis was non-existent until 19th century self-styled philosophers looked for evidence that mankind was older than the Bible gave it credit for "rediscovered" the story and decided to use it as proof (a la Ignatius Donnelly). Since then, mystics and wooic elements of every sort have latched onto Atlantis, turning it into an advanced civilization that used "crystal energy", airplanes and computers, and even space technology. You can generally tell the agenda by the story given.

So the external account was Biblical misinterpretation?

I've read my Bible from cover to cover several times over, even the books that got left out... how the heck do you get Atlantis from it? Passages from the flood story?

geni

15th November 2004, 04:52 AM

Oh sod this has hit wikipeias frount page.

CFLarsen

15th November 2004, 07:16 AM

Hardly news.

Discovery of Atlantis: The Startling Case for the Island of Cyprus by Robert Sarmast (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579830129/qid%3D1100527884/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-7544596-6508718)

People who dismiss this have not really done their homework, skeptics don't really understand. To understand the enigma of Atlantis you have to have good knowledge of ancient history, Biblical references, the Sumerian culture and their tablets and so on.

No, you don't.

All you need to do to "understand the enigma of Atlantis" is to find the bloody place. I mean, with real artifacts, not merely humps on the seabed.

Larspeart

15th November 2004, 09:35 AM

Actually, Plato didn't write, or come up with the Atlantis LEGEND.

His grandfather told it one night, and Plato happened to be one of those listening.

But...

It wasn't his grandfather who came up with it either. His grandfather fully admits the HE heard it in Egypt earlier still.

My guess is a snake told the damn story to Adam if you go back for enough.

The Devils way of making mankind eternally poor... from all the damn looking we do for the stupid place.

Upchurch

15th November 2004, 10:34 AM

Why aren't there pictures of whatever they found everywhere I turn? I'm looking for an underwater picture and I can't find a single thing.

Checkmite

15th November 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Larspeart
Actually, Plato didn't write, or come up with the Atlantis LEGEND.

His grandfather told it one night, and Plato happened to be one of those listening.

But...

It wasn't his grandfather who came up with it either. His grandfather fully admits the HE heard it in Egypt earlier still.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're missing a couple of things.

In the dialogue Critias, where Atlantis is mentioned for the very first time, the lead character (Critias) tells the story as he heard it from his grandfather (also named Critias) who heard the story from Solon who was told the story in ancient Egypt. It was "Critias" to whom the story was passed, and it is Critias who tells the story as a character in Plato's dialogue. Plato doesn't figure as a character in any of his works. Plato did invent the story all by himself.

BillC

15th November 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why aren't there pictures of whatever they found everywhere I turn? I'm looking for an underwater picture and I can't find a single thing.
Their website (http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/press_sarmast_bio.htm) has some underwater topology maps (http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/NewAtlantisLocationPictures/index.html), but I find picture 6 particularly unconvincing.

One question that puzzles me: is it at all possible for an island to sink 1500m into the sea bed? I can imagine a cataclysmic explosion removing 1500m from a volcano top, but I find it difficult to envisage a land mass slowly sinking down that deep in anything like an 11,000 year timescale. Or can anyone who knows more about geology correct me?

rserocki

15th November 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by BillC
Their website (http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/press_sarmast_bio.htm) has some underwater topology maps (http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/NewAtlantisLocationPictures/index.html), but I find picture 6 particularly unconvincing.

One question that puzzles me: is it at all possible for an island to sink 1500m into the sea bed? I can imagine a cataclysmic explosion removing 1500m from a volcano top, but I find it difficult to envisage a land mass slowly sinking down that deep in anything like an 11,000 year timescale. Or can anyone who knows more about geology correct me?

I just skimmed over the website, but it looked to me that he is saying its current location underwater is due to rising sea levels and a natural dam breaking, resulting in a local catastrophic flood. I'm too ignorant of such matters to know if this reasonable for the amount of water over the area.

Checkmite

15th November 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by BillC

One question that puzzles me: is it at all possible for an island to sink 1500m into the sea bed? I can imagine a cataclysmic explosion removing 1500m from a volcano top, but I find it difficult to envisage a land mass slowly sinking down that deep in anything like an 11,000 year timescale. Or can anyone who knows more about geology correct me?

I don't know about 11,000 years - I'm unsure of what geological mechanism would allow a landmass to slowly sink into the ground over thousands of years.

On the other hand, it can happen nearly instantaneously. The most famous example is Krakatau, a small island in the Sunda Strait west (not East) of Java. When it erupted in 1883, a large reservoir of magma directly beneath the island was explosively evacuated, leaving a huge subterranean void. With nothing below to hold it up, a great portion (about three-quarters) of the island fell into this void, leaving a huge crater-like depression - called a "caldera" - in the sea floor. Kind of like a huge Earth-zit. As a testament to the coolness of nature, the collapse of the island left exactly half of a mountain still standing on the edge of a caldera, sheerly cut down the middle, leaving a nice textbook-like cross-sectional face. We know how this happened now, but at the time it was believed that the phenomenal explosions that occurred during the eruption literally blasted the island out of existence.

However, Krakatau was a small island - Atlantis was supposed to be huge. Krakatau was destroyed by a volcanic eruption - Atlantis was destroyed by "rain and flooding causing the island to sink". Krakatau left a caldera - a distinctive and easily recognizable feature that leaves no question as to what happened. Does this "new" Atlantis site sport such a feature? The article doesn't say.

Uh_Clem

15th November 2004, 06:18 PM

What really disappoints me most about these nearly annual discoveries of atlantis is that they raise all this money, find something interesting on the sea floor, take some indecipherable photo/sonar shots, give a vague date sometime next year for a second expedition (with better equipment), and then you never hear anything else about it.

I'd actually just be interested to see what some of these structures are.

c4ts

15th November 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Uh_Clem
What really disappoints me most about these nearly annual discoveries of atlantis is that they raise all this money, find something interesting on the sea floor, take some indecipherable photo/sonar shots, give a vague date sometime next year for a second expedition (with better equipment), and then you never hear anything else about it.

I'd actually just be interested to see what some of these structures are.

Rocks. Or topographical images of that one hill where the guy reversed the boat's direction halfway through so it would look like a pyramid.

Wolverine

15th November 2004, 09:03 PM

Perhaps Mr. Sarmast just needs Atlantean Implant Removal (http://the-temple-of-healing.8m.com/custom.html). :D

Amazing how many Atlantean thingies are returned via Googlage. My favorites are the Atlantean Inert Gas Pendants (http://infinity.hispeed.com/Heart.Of.God/AtlanteanInertGasPendant.htm) & these ever-so-handy Atlantean Astral e-Cards (http://www.astraldelta.com/atlanteanecard.htm).

KingMerv00

16th November 2004, 05:31 AM

I suggest everyone go to the website and take a look at the list of things he says that Atlantis WOULD have if it were real.

Any idea how he confirmed bees could live there? I mean it's underwater right? Did I miss something?

http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/press_sarmast_bio.htm

Also you can tell he's not a science guy. All his wording is so sure of itself. Journals and official writings use qualifiers like "seems to suggest" etc. He just KNOWS.

Checkmite

16th November 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Any idea how he confirmed bees could live there? I mean it's underwater right? Did I miss something?

Because bees are so cool, and they can live anywhere there are flowers. So of course they could live in Atlantis. Before it sank, I mean.

Ashles

16th November 2004, 10:58 AM

Am I right in thinking he is basing this entire theory on a computer model that looks like this:

http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/NewAtlantisLocationPictures/images/atlantis11.jpg

Also he says:
Many of your questions will be answered in the Question/Answer page
But I couldn't find that page. It certainly doesn't have a link from the front page of the site as you'd expect.

Can anyone help me find it as I have some questions.

Wolverine

16th November 2004, 10:52 PM

Yet another update:

The remains of the lost city of Atlantis, which a United States researcher claims to have found off the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, are in fact submarine volcanoes, according to a German physicist.

US researcher Robert Sarmast claimed on Sunday to have found proof that the mythical lost city of Atlantis actually existed and is located under the Mediterranean seabed between Cyprus and Syria.

But German physicist Christian Huebscher said he had identified the phenomenon as 100,000 year-old volcanoes that spewed mud.

Huebscher, of the Hamburg Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, is quoted in tomorrow's edition of the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as saying he and two Dutch colleagues had sailed in a boat to the same area at which Sarmast claimed to have located Atlantis and made their findings.

Story (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Row-erupts-over-Atlantis-claim/2004/11/17/1100574500242.html).

Doh! :D

Temporal Renegade

17th November 2004, 06:01 PM

Jeebus Tap-Dancing Crust!!

How many of these fershlugginer things ARE there in the world, anyway?!?!

c4ts

17th November 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
Am I right in thinking he is basing this entire theory on a computer model that looks like this:

http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/NewAtlantisLocationPictures/images/atlantis11.jpg

Also he says:

But I couldn't find that page. It certainly doesn't have a link from the front page of the site as you'd expect.

Can anyone help me find it as I have some questions.

You'd think something as big as a RUINED CITY would show up in the dent!

Wolverine

17th November 2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
Jeebus Tap-Dancing Crust!!

How many of these fershlugginer things ARE there in the world, anyway?!?!

A lot (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109823/).

Nex

17th November 2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
... My favorites are the Atlantean Inert Gas Pendants (http://infinity.hispeed.com/Heart.Of.God/AtlanteanInertGasPendant.htm) ...
Oh, criminy...

Originally posted on that GassyPendant site
Based on inert gas technologies developed in Atlantean times (see Winter 99 & Spring 2000), the 'Spiritual Empowerment' Atlantean Inert Gas Pendant is an elegant work of metaphysical science that can be worn by anyone with only positive, beneficial effects.
My emphasis on the huge oxymoron.

Originally posted on that E-card site
http://www.astraldelta.com/stargateportalwoman.jpg
It's like that Stargate movie, but all Atlantean n' stuff. Apparently Atlanteans dressed just like characters from Dungeons and Dragons.

Snazzy.

Xeriar

17th November 2004, 11:53 PM

Temporal Renegade

19th November 2004, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Nex
Oh, criminy...

My emphasis on the huge oxymoron.

It's like that Stargate movie, but all Atlantean n' stuff. Apparently Atlanteans dressed just like characters from Dungeons and Dragons.

Snazzy.

Well, of course they did! How else were they expected to dress? In robes or togas, or some such type of clothing that everyone else wore back then? How would anyone know they were 'Enlightened', if they looked like everyone else?

Anders

19th November 2004, 05:23 AM

Ashles

19th November 2004, 07:35 AM

I knew the submerged city of Atlantis reminded me of something:

Wolverine

19th November 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
How would anyone know they were 'Enlightened', if they looked like everyone else?

:D :D

KingMerv00

7th June 2005, 08:48 AM

Anyone remember this story? It was pretty big "news" at the time. I'm not sure what made me think of it but I wonder how they're doing.

It's been seven months. Surely they have more evidence by now. I am waiting on the edge of my seat for the day when they drag a 20,000 year old crystal DVD player from the ocean.

BillC

7th June 2005, 12:11 PM

From their website, they appear to be still at it, just a little more subdued than 7 months ago:
http://www.aquatec-innerspace.com/aioatlantis05.htm
Incidently, they want Â£15 to subscribe to their 2005 mailing list.
I'm pretty sure Uh_Clem's prediction earlier in this thread is likely to turn out to be the case.

Donks

7th June 2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by BillC
What is it about the Atlantis myth that drives people to attempt to locate it, while Utopia or El Dorado remain just stories?
You have to remember that before Schliemann found the site of Troy, it was believed to be a myth (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/04TROY.htm). So the dreamers keep dreaming that Atlantis too is real.

Morris Cod

9th June 2005, 08:34 PM

Anyone read the FAQ bit at the link nex posted. Do yourselves a favour.

Technology and science bandied about by a loony with a lathe.

Also noticed a reference to a book, "Einstein does'nt work here anymore" anybody read that??!!

steenkh

10th June 2005, 03:37 AM

It is my understanding that Plato made up Atlantis as a sort of mirror image of Athens gone wrong. He wanted to warn Athenians about the effects of militarisation and dictatorship, and the place was so evil that in the end, it was destroyed by the gods.

For some reason people tend to look on Atlanteans as a gentle, wise people who spent their time discovering new wondrous technologies, but were suddenly sunk with no trace.

Temporal Renegade

12th June 2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by steenkh
It is my understanding that Plato made up Atlantis as a sort of mirror image of Athens gone wrong. He wanted to warn Athenians about the effects of militarisation and dictatorship, and the place was so evil that in the end, it was destroyed by the gods.

For some reason people tend to look on Atlanteans as a gentle, wise people who spent their time discovering new wondrous technologies, but were suddenly sunk with no trace.

And yet, not a scrap of the 'technology' survives; you'd think that something would have turned up by now. After all, didn't at least some of their people supposedly use it to escape the destruction?

And, why did it take them by surprise in the first place? With all that gear, they couldn't spring for a decent meteorologist or a seismograph?!?!

steenkh

13th June 2005, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
And yet, not a scrap of the 'technology' survives; you'd think that something would have turned up by now. After all, didn't at least some of their people supposedly use it to escape the destruction?

And, why did it take them by surprise in the first place? With all that gear, they couldn't spring for a decent meteorologist or a seismograph?!?!
Well, I do not believe in Atlantis as a real historic country, but it is easy to counter these arguments, just look at our own world: Maybe they had the technology, but had ignored warbnings that the catastrophe could happen. Maybe it was judged that most earthquakes happened elsewhere in the world and that there was no special reason why it was so urgent to look for right there. It could be that the scientists said that there was still a dispute over whether Atlantis could sink or not, and more research was needed, and the government felt it would be too damaging to economic growth to spend so much money on earthquake protection. Or whatever.

Kilik

13th June 2005, 01:01 AM

ALso, it is associated with Egypt in some cases. The knowledge of the history about it is said to come from Egypt, who kept records of Atlantis' existence. The ancient Greeks thought Giza to be a wonder of the ancient world,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992589/posts
http://www.medioambiente.cu/museo/exmar5i.htm
http://www.medioambiente.cu/museo/exmar6i.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/pyramidchina.html
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm
http://www.ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/greatbluehole.html

Even National Geographic admits that there are prehistoric civilization submerged under the sea that could shed some light on possibly many flood legends, one of which could be atlantis
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0528_020528_sunkencities.html

Redating the sphinx-
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx1.html
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Giza/

Underground pictures. Under every layer is a deeper level, Hall of Records, Perhaps Thoths Chamber or SHip-
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html

Info
http://www.nii.net/~obie/historygold.htm

Internal Cross
http://www.medioambiente.cu/museo/imagen/cruz2.gif

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/17/photos/wire-habit.jpg

unidentified line
http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/C/CubaStoneLine5.jpg

http://www.caribbeanmag.com/maps/CentralAmericaMap.jpg

http://www.belizenews.com/files/pages/town/artpark/blueholesm.jpg

steenkh

13th June 2005, 03:35 AM

Kilik, none of the links you provided were about the ancient Egyptians keeping records of the existence of Atlantis. I have been interested in Egyptian history since my youth where I studied Egyptology (well the language, mainly), and I have never heard of this particular angle. But then, there are probably many things about Egyptians that I have not heard, even if I have heard more than most.

Who says the knowledge of Atlantis comes from Egypt?

It is my opinion that there is no knowledge of Atlantis anywhere except in Plato's dialogues and the works that discuss them. Plato simply invented the place to prove a point.

However that does not mean that there are no submerged cultures. I am sure there are plenty of them. Even Egypt has its own submerged culture, because Alexandria was destroyed by a tsunami and sunk (however, long after Platon :) )

Since you seem interested in pyramids, I might add that I also do not believe there has been much if any contact between the various pyramid-building cultures. Pyramids is simply the thing to build if you want to build really big and stable, not mention cheap, because most pyramids are filled with rubble or earth. Those cultures did not have the technology to build towers of the same height, and the pyramid shape is easy to invent. Besides it is pleasing to the eye.

Much has been said about the Egyptians having achieved the perfect angle of their pyramids, but again, the Egyptians had to make a number of failed pyramids before they came up with this angle (I have forgotten the exact value) that made the pyramid both steep and stable.

BTW, I also find Giza one of the wonders of the world!

Kilik

13th June 2005, 03:40 AM

"Who says the knowledge of Atlantis comes from Egypt?"

My understanding was always that one of many to say it, was Plato!

There have been issues raised which cast doubt on who really built them, and if they are tombs I think. It is debated in several different fields of study

Here's a site which contains a lot of stats. It might be relevant, maybe not
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_2.htm

More on it, it is *********** huge! Way huger than some other ones
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Great-Pyramid-of-Giza
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Moscow-and-Rhind-Mathematical-Papyri

Anways, I'm not sure if it can so easily be explained , when you see pictures of how massive it actually is. I never have seen it in person.

BillC

13th June 2005, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
My understanding was always that one of many to say it, was Plato!No, Plato was the first. There are no references to Atlantis before Plato wrote Critias and Timaeus, and all later writings are derived from these. The entire story of Atlantis rests solely on the writings of Plato; if he made up the story to raise a moral point about the inevitable destruction of a decadent society, then there is nothing to Atlantis.
Here's a site which contains a lot of stats. It might be relevant, maybe notIt is probably not worth posting a link unless you know whether it is relevant.
I'm not sure if it can so easily be explained , when you see pictures of how massive it actually is.I have a problem with claims that ancient civilisations were neither intelligent nor resourceful enough to construct the monuments attributed to them. It seems like a form of racism to me. Why do you believe that the Egyptians were incapable of building pyramids?

Kilik

13th June 2005, 05:54 AM

No. I simply meant to say the huge size, as well as the age range means it's hard to say or know for sure, and without seeing it through preconceived notions or programming. That goes for me or anyone else, I guess

Kilik

13th June 2005, 06:09 AM

steenkh

13th June 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
"Who says the knowledge of Atlantis comes from Egypt?"

My understanding was always that one of many to say it, was Plato!

Well, I would have thought that there were some Egyptian sources for this? After all, Egyptian history is fairly well-documented, and battles between Egyptians and Atlanteans should have been recorded somewhere? And I still cannot find anything on Atlantis that does not stem from Plato, so I would say that "many" is a bit exaggerated.

On pyramids:

There have been issues raised which cast doubt on who really built them, and if they are tombs I think. It is debated in several different fields of study

Well, again, the egyptians' own texts say that they are funerary edifices, the adjoining funerary temple that was built for all pyramids has also been found for the Great Pyramid, and the workmens' huts are being excavated. But of course, it is too mundane compared to the possibility they were dumped from outer space and were "a repository for universal standards" is much more convincing:

(from your link)

The Great Pyramid is a repository of universal standards, it is a model of the earth against which any standard could be confirmed and corrected if necessary.
It is exactly the imperishable standard, which the French had sought to create by the devising of the metre, but infinitely more practical and intelligent.

Strange, really. I would have thought that building a huge pyramid would be so much more impractical, especially to be a repository of a universal standard! And what function has all the other Egyptian pyramids? (There are at least 60 big ones, and a couple of hundred small ones)

That whole link is good example of data mining. People sit at their computers and try to fit the data of the pyramids into all sorts of relationships, and voilÃ¡, it represent the diameters of the earth and the moon!

I am not saying that all of it is rubbish, I am just saying that rationality has long since left the minds of those people who need to believe that there need to be a mystery in the pyramids.

Anways, I'm not sure if it can so easily be explained , when you see pictures of how massive it actually is. I never have seen it in person.
I think that the Egyptian explanation is fascinating in itself, and I do not see why we need a "hard" explanation. The pyramids in Giza are indeed massive, and I have seen them up close, but you need an engineer to tell you why the ancients could not have have built the pyramids with the means they had, because it is not obvious just how vast the task must have been.

It does seem, however, that the estimates on how many workers have been necessary, is constantly downgraded, as newer ideas on how they have been built, have been forwarded. The workmen's village was large, but it was not huge (but there might have been more than one).

Kilik

13th June 2005, 06:44 AM

"Strange, really. I would have thought that building a huge pyramid would be so much more impractical, especially to be a repository of a universal standard!"

Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but if you think about it, the whole universe is sort of like a pyramid from big to small, or like a wave of many waves. Like atoms and subatomic particles, to humans, the moon, the earth, the sun, and the galaxy. You know, those kind of factors could maybe get into how or why life evolves, I bet cycles of all these things matter. To life and possibly to ancient cultures

And there are deep underground tunnels under Giza. With who knows what stored in them, or what their true purpose is.

But, in the end it's all probably trying to peice a puzzle with a very small percent of the peices, very small. That's how I see it anyways, yeah.

Ashles

13th June 2005, 08:09 AM

steenkh

13th June 2005, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but if you think about it, the whole universe is sort of like a pyramid from big to small, or like a wave of many waves. Like atoms and subatomic particles, to humans, the moon, the earth, the sun, and the galaxy. You know, those kind of factors could maybe get into how or why life evolves, I bet cycles of all these things matter. To life and possibly to ancient cultures

I have no idea what pyramids you are talking about, nor which cycles! Are you just referring to the trivial fact that there are small ting, intermediate things and big things in the universe?

And there are deep underground tunnels under Giza. With who knows what stored in them, or what their true purpose is.

On what authority are you basing this controversial claim? People constantly bring up their own fantastic geometric schemes for the pyramids, and calculate that there "just has to be" hidden grave chambers or tunnels inside or under the pyramids. But when these theories are tested, they always come up with nil!

A few years ago, there was much hubbub because of the discovery of a sealed shaft inside the Great Pyramid. Enthusiastic researchers sent a tiny robot into the shaft and found - you will be surprised - nothing!

The Egyptian kings were very much concerned about having their graves disturbed and went to great lengths to prevent this. Hardly any of them escaped ancient grave robbers, who were often also employees of the royal cemeteries. The few graves that were not robbed, managed this by sliding into obscurity, for instance by being buried under debris from another grave digging. (I know that Tut-ankh-Amun's grave was in fact robbed - twice - but there was still much to be nicked when it became buried. To think that the ancient grave robbers would not have found everything that was worth finding in such a conspicuous grave as a pyramid is really to underestimate the intelligence and resourcefulness of the ancients.

And yes, the Great Pyramid was looted so completely that only the huge stone sarcophagus that was actually put into the grave chamber before the lintel was placed on the doorway, was extant when modern adventurers went inside.

Ashles

13th June 2005, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
But, in the end it's all probably trying to peice a puzzle with a very small percent of the peices, very small. That's how I see it anyways, yeah.
Or pretending that your small complete jigsaw puzzle is part of an imaginary huge one.
Exciting to pretend, but ultimately not true.

ETA: And where are you getting your information about tunnels deep underneath the pyramids?

Any links to reputable sources?

Psiload

13th June 2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
And there are deep underground tunnels under Giza. With who knows what stored in them, or what their true purpose is. The mystical library containing the complete knowledge of pyramidiocy is stored in them, and their purpose is to sell lot's of silly books to foolish people.

Yes, these underground tunnels are truly amazing, and what's more amazing is the we know their exact location...

in the imaginations of people like Edgar Cayce, Graham Hancock, Erich Von Daniken, etc...

Unfortunately, that's the ONLY place they exist.

Ashles

13th June 2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Psiload
Yes, these underground tunnels are truly amazing, and what's more amazing is the we know their exact location...

in the imaginations of people like Edgar Cayce,
Oh Jeez... him again.

Well now at least we understand Kilik's obsession - anything Cayce says...

Psiload

13th June 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Oh Jeez... him again.

Well now at least we understand Kilik's obsession - anything Cayce says... http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/165_cayce.shtml

According to Edgar Cayce, by late 2001 a huge chamber beneath the Sphinx, by the Great Pyramid, should have been opened. He believed that inside the chamber is a magical library, left there by Atlanteans, with information that will shock the world.

:rolleyes:

Ashles

13th June 2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Psiload
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/165_cayce.shtml

:rolleyes:
The media today... tch.

First they ignore the commencement of the 1,000 year Battle of Armageddon, then they fail to report the second coming of Jesus, now this...

I mean I know it's been busy in the Big Brother house but really, you'd have thought someone would have noticed.

Kilik

13th June 2005, 03:40 PM

Here's an image from a link I put up earlier.

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/osiris4xx.jpg
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html

I saw this on TV. They found these tunnels with technology, like I don't know, sonar or radar. Before the shows on the shaft even were aired. Way underneath the Sphinx they found the tomb of Osiris which is strange seeing Osiris was a God supposedly and not a person. There are massive water pipes and stuff down there, it was shown on TV. Then they showed that from the Tomb of Osiris several hallways brached out in the directions around the Giza plateau. ANd I seem to remember that some even were going in the direction of exactly where they said Cayce said a "hall of records" was.

Kilik

13th June 2005, 03:49 PM

http://www.lyghtforce.com/Giza/
http://www.keysofenoch.org/html/giza_update.html

"2. Tunnels & Chambers Under The Great Sphinx

(I) In a series of expeditions between 1991 and 1993 led by John Anthony West, and independent Egyptologist, scientific investigators conducted geological and seismic surveys around the Great Sphinx of Egypt. The chief geologist was Dr. Robert Schoch, Professor of Geology at Boston University, and the chief seismologist was Thomas Dobecki from the highly-respected Houston consulting firm, McBride-Ratclif & Associates.

(II) The team's conclusions were as follows:

A. Geology, The pattern of erosion on the Sphinx indicates that it was carved at the end of the last Ice Age, when heavy rains fell in the eastern Sahara - perhaps more than 12,000 years ago. This contrasts starkly with the 'orthodox' Egyptological dating for the Sphinx of around 4,500 years ago.

B. Seismography. The seismic survey indicated the existence of several unexplored tunnels and cavities in the bedrock beneath the Sphinx, including a large rectangular chamber at a depth of some 25 feet beneath the monuments front paws."

And

" The idea of there being a secret chamber buried somewhere beneath the Sphinx was first popularized by renowned psychic Edgar Cayce in 1932. Cayce believed that this secret chamber contained an ancient Hall of Records, which contained, among other things, manuscripts detailing the history of mankind much further back than we are currently aware - possibly even back to the world before the Flood. He also predicted that the Hall would be discovered sometime around the year 2000.

In recent years, this prophecy may have come true. Scientists using an array of techniques, searching on and around the Sphinx, have discovered one or more large, box-shaped, hollow areas just below the Sphinx. One of these enclosures is located beneath of the paws of the Sphinx, just where Cayce had predicted the Hall of Records would be found. Bauval explains,

The Giza necropolis, it seems, has finally decided to discharge all its secrets at once. For not far from the Great Pyramid, in a shallow enclave to the East, is the Great Sphinx. It, too, may be guarding a treasure-trove under its belly: a "Hall of Records" of a civilization long lost in the mist of time. There, too, with amazing synchronicity, an entrance to such a vault has been known since 1993. Why have these "chambers" not yet been opened? What could be within them? Could the Egyptian authorities know more than they are letting on?"
http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/1999/Autumn/Sphinx04/
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/phoenix/hallofrecords/hallrecordsfront.htm

If I'm not mistaken, alot of these theories propbably came to light in 1993 with the documentary " Mystery of the Sphinx" produced by Robert Watts. THat's probably when these issues were brought to light

Ashles

14th June 2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
Any links to reputable sources?

BillC

14th June 2005, 04:25 PM

Kilik, this link (http://www.ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/greatbluehole.html) that you included is a scuba diving guide to Belize. What relevance does it have to a thread about a claim to have found Atlantis off the coast of Cyprus? In fact, what does it have to do with anything other than diving in Belize?

Kilik

14th June 2005, 08:31 PM

The undersground tunnels I remember were shown to the public on live TV, I think 5 years ago or so. Many were yet to be explored, well, supposedly. And one site I linked had some actual pictures

I think a lot of this first aired on the "Mystery of the Sphinx "
documentary in 1993. It won an Emmy for research,-

"The Mystery of The Sphinx, which was hosted by Charlton Heston, aired on NBC in 1993 and was nominated for two Emmy Awards, winning one for research."

The "Blue Hole" sites, if I'm not reading wrong, are showing that it was above water before the ice age. And it is in the general vicintiy of where megalithic structures are now being discovered and researched, so mainly I thought that particular site had a good photo shot of the whole area not just the hole.

Not necessarily cyprus though, so it might be a different situation or unrelated

Explorer

15th June 2005, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Donks
You have to remember that before Schliemann found the site of Troy, it was believed to be a myth (http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/04TROY.htm). So the dreamers keep dreaming that Atlantis too is real.

It was that kind of dreaming that motivated Schliemann.

The world is a richer and more interesting place because of dreaming.

How dull it would be if everyone was a skeptic, and/or a cynic.

Thanks Mr Schleimann! If you had been too skeptical, Troy would perhaps would still be buried and mythical, that is until the next dreamer was born.

steenkh

15th June 2005, 05:08 AM

Kilik, have you never wondered why these fantastic theories of John A. West have not been eagerly accepted by the egyptologists? There are lots of young researchers who would get a great career opportunity if they found supporting evidence for them.

Well, actually, Dr. Robert Schoch does not support West's theory of a 12,000 year old Sphinx. His own estimate is only about half that. The seismological data collected by Dr. Thomas L. Dobecki did not locate any hidden tunnels or rooms under the Sphinx. You can see Dr. Schoch's report on his web-site (http://www.robertschoch.net/articles/geological_evidence_sphinx.html). You will also find that a great deal of criticism has been levelled at his geological findings, even though he believes he can rebut it. His findings have definitely not been silenced.

Personally, I would have nothing against an older Sphinx or hidden tunnels. But I am not looking for solutions to mysteries, because I do not see any; I think it is important not lose reason, and go where the facts are. If Dr. Schoch's dating holds true, there will be some very interesting conclusions to draw, but this is the normal way for science to work.

It is not the way of reason to put faith in psychic ravings of people who have "seen" hidden libraries buried deep under the Sphinx.

Ashles

15th June 2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
It was that kind of dreaming that motivated Schliemann.

The world is a richer and more interesting place because of dreaming.

How dull it would be if everyone was a skeptic, and/or a cynic.

Thanks Mr Schleimann! If you had been too skeptical, Troy would perhaps would still be buried and mythical, that is until the next dreamer was born.
Yet again cynicism is confused with scepticism. More by deliberate design then mistake I suspect.

Sceptics discover things all the time - it's actually childish to imply otherwise.

I am a sceptic - I also love science fiction (reading it and writing it) I love a good ghost movie and I am as capable of great conceptual leaps in logic to find an answer to a question as anyone else.

It's really an irritating and incorrect misconception you are perpetuating Explorer. Is it because you feel your fantasies are somehow threatened?

Research and logical investigation would reveal a lost city, whether it be Troy or Atlantis.
However you'll notice stories about Troy described a city and battles that fit in with known history and reality, whereas stories about Atlantis involve fantasy and ridiculous superpowers and legends.

It's a little sad how believers always try to fall back on the "Having bizarre beliefs makes you a better and nmore rounded person" myth.

Most of the sceptics I have encountered here are actually far from dull and capable of talking interestingly on a wide range of subjects. Which is often more than can be said for certain other people.

Just for your education 'dreamers' and 'skeptics' are not mutually exclusive groups. Only ignorance or wilful delusion would lead anyone to believe they are.

Kilik

15th June 2005, 11:29 AM

There are tunnels underneath the Sphinx. It there aren't, then what is the tomb of Osiris which was seen by millions of people on TV? Well, a tomb for a god is a little strange I guess

Ashles

15th June 2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
There are tunnels underneath the Sphinx. It there aren't, then what is the tomb of Osiris which was seen by millions of people on TV? Well, a tomb for a god is a little strange I guess
Why? People build all sorts of religious artefacts for all sorts of reasons.

I guess you don't actually have any proper research on the subject then? Just "I saw it on TV"

And in 12 years no-one has bothered to check out any of these tunnels?

Okay then. All sounding very convincing.

Kilik

15th June 2005, 11:38 AM

Perhaps it should also be noted that while it is possible the story is tale to make a point, Plato goes into a bit of detail about where the story comes from. He makes sure to describe that Solon learned the story in Egypt while there in 580 BC. According to the story Atlantis exsisted 9000 years before that

"Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, as well as over parts of the continent, and besides these they subjected parts of Libya within the Straits as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.
- PLATO, Timaeus

Edited- Read here
www.cycleoftime.com/articles_view.php?codArtigo=68

BillC

15th June 2005, 11:55 AM

Kilik, the posting of copyrighted articles in their entirety is a violation of Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement.

Kilik

15th June 2005, 12:05 PM

"I have found a shaft, going 29 meters [95 feet, approximately] vertically down into the ground, exactly halfway between the Chefren Pyramid and the Sphinx. At the bottom, which was filled with water, we have found a burial chamber with four pillars. In the middle is a large granite sarcophagus which I expect to be the grave of Osiris, the god,"

---ZAHI HAWASS, (Directed of the Giza Plateau, Egyptologist), In newspaper Extra Bladet (Copenhagen), January 31, 1999, "Sandpit Of Royalty", By Dorte Quist"

Is that reputable enough?

Or also
"Whilst we were going into our Time Gate night in the great pyramid, in early March, we were accompanied by the inspector, one of the first under the chain of command of Dr. Hawass. I spoke to him regarding the "well shaft" in the causeway, and that Dr. Hawass had made the discovery of the century, I asked when his book would be ready, the inspector was surprised, he told me :not many people know that he is writing a book", and then asked whose sarcophagus Dr.. Hawass thought it was; whether he had found Chefren's tomb? Without hesitation, and with 5 witnesses present, he stated, overtly "Dr.. Hawass thinks that it is the Tomb of the god Osiris," Randolph Barolet caught my eye, and then stated, so the inspecter could here, I am a witness to what he just stated. We learnt more from this inspector, within the Great Pyramid, at least he confirmed what a great deal of the locals had passed on, some reliable, some perhaps not, but always the story is the same in these regards (as will be shared in the next postings on the Hallway Or Records HOR)."

Pictures-
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html

Ashles

15th June 2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
"I have found a shaft, going 29 meters [95 feet, approximately] vertically down into the ground, exactly halfway between the Chefren Pyramid and the Sphinx. At the bottom, which was filled with water, we have found a burial chamber with four pillars. In the middle is a large granite sarcophagus which I expect to be the grave of Osiris, the god,"

---ZAHI HAWASS, (Directed of the Giza Plateau, Egyptologist), In newspaper Extra Bladet (Copenhagen), January 31, 1999, "Sandpit Of Royalty", By Dorte Quist"

Is that reputable enough?

Pictures-
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html
And how do you get from that statement to your theories abut tunnel networks, mysterious libraries and Atlantis?
There are many interviews with Zahi Hawass on the internet and in none of them that I have read does he imply anything like the claims you are making.
He states quite clearly
So the pyramid complex functions as much as a palace as it does a temple. The architecture and decorative programmes as well as other evidence show that the king as Horus and Re is worshipped inside the temples, and that the whole complex is created to worship the triad of Re, Horus, and Hathor and to celebrate the myth of the kingship.
nn his website.

So the fact that he discovered a pit with a tomb in does not support any of your theories in any way. And he obviously wasn't referring to the tomb as being a literal tomb of a God.

It's always a shame when you see reputable experts being dragged into a conversation and their quotes taken out of context to support a belief or claim that they clearly don't subscribe to themselves.

Ashles

15th June 2005, 12:33 PM

And just so you are clear about that shaft, read this page from his website (http://www.guardians.net/hawass/osiris1.htm)
I made my second discovery from this excavation after moving the lid of the sarcophagus. I found inscribed in the ground the hieroglyphic word "pr", meaning "house." It is known that the Giza plateau was called "pr wsir nb rstaw", or "the house of Osiris, Lord of Rastaw." "Rastaw" refers to the underground tunnels, and most likely the name of the plateau reflects the tunnels inside the Osiris Shaft. The final chamber we found was most likely a symbolic tomb for the god Osiris; he was believed to control the underground tunnels and tombs of the kings.

In the Late period, the Egyptians cut a tunnel about 6m long on the west wall of the shaft. We sent a boy through the tunnel, only to find that it is closed of and does not lead to any more chambers. To derive the date of the shaft, a boy was lowered into the water-filler tomb on a rope to collect artifacts. From the objects retrieved, we dated the shaft to the New Kingdom, 1550 BC.
So it is a symbolic tomb.
And the tunnel doesn't lead anywhere else.
So it is clearly nothing to do with what you were talking about.

So I ask again - any reputable sources for your claims?

Psiload

15th June 2005, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
"I have found a shaft, going 29 meters [95 feet, approximately] vertically down into the ground, exactly halfway between the Chefren Pyramid and the Sphinx. At the bottom, which was filled with water, we have found a burial chamber with four pillars. In the middle is a large granite sarcophagus which I expect to be the grave of Osiris, the god,"

---ZAHI HAWASS, (Directed of the Giza Plateau, Egyptologist), In newspaper Extra Bladet (Copenhagen), January 31, 1999, "Sandpit Of Royalty", By Dorte Quist"

Is that reputable enough?

Or also
"Whilst we were going into our Time Gate night in the great pyramid, in early March, we were accompanied by the inspector, one of the first under the chain of command of Dr. Hawass. I spoke to him regarding the "well shaft" in the causeway, and that Dr. Hawass had made the discovery of the century, I asked when his book would be ready, the inspector was surprised, he told me :not many people know that he is writing a book", and then asked whose sarcophagus Dr.. Hawass thought it was; whether he had found Chefren's tomb? Without hesitation, and with 5 witnesses present, he stated, overtly "Dr.. Hawass thinks that it is the Tomb of the god Osiris," Randolph Barolet caught my eye, and then stated, so the inspecter could here, I am a witness to what he just stated. We learnt more from this inspector, within the Great Pyramid, at least he confirmed what a great deal of the locals had passed on, some reliable, some perhaps not, but always the story is the same in these regards (as will be shared in the next postings on the Hallway Or Records HOR)."

Pictures-
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html "You know Suzy, Cayce, Edgar Cayce and lost civilisation, it's a legend, it's a myth."

------ZAHI HAWASS, (Director of the Giza Plateau, Egyptologist), March 2, 1999, the FOX Television Network broadcast of 'Opening The Lost Tombs: Live From Egypt.'

Is that reputable enough?

Kilik

15th June 2005, 04:09 PM

That's his own opinion, which he is entitled to.

Ashles

15th June 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
That's his own opinion, which he is entitled to.
In my time at the JREF I have seriously never seen anyone dismiss a comment by an expert as merely their opinion after having quoted them as a reputable source 4 posts previously.

That's quite remarkable.

Any comment on the mundane nature of the "Tomb of Osiris"?
No let me guess - that's just his opinion too.

I have never hoped that someone is really a troll so much.
Kilik, if you aren't, you need serious help.

Kilik

15th June 2005, 04:56 PM

I never said anyone is "reputable". But I think it is safe to assume there are massive tunnels and chambers there, some are already shown. As far as something as simple as whether a tomb exists, it's safe enough to assume that he is not lying and the pictures are plain. However, that is based on his field, and as we've seen those of other fields disagree in some regards regarding Giza, like age of the Sphinx. There are differing or competeing theories in many fields, like I saw a show which showed species migration has a few different theories.

And then some tombs have to be symbolic, but some are real.

From this site
http://www.catchpenny.org/hawass.html

"Florida State University, on behalf of the Schor Expedition, carried out a remote sensing survey around the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau for three weeks in April 1996. They claimed to have found "rooms and tunnels" in front of the Sphinx and running from the rear of the Sphinx. Several other projects have made similar claims:

SRI International did an electrical resistivity and acoustical survey in 1977-78.

In 1987 a Japanese team from Waseda University (Tokyo), under the direction of Sakuji Yoshimura carried out an electromagnetic sounding survey of the Khufu Pyramid and Sphinx. They reported evidence of a tunnel oriented north-south under the Sphinx, a water pocket 2.5 to 3m below surface near the south hind paw, and another cavity near the north hind paw.

In 1991 a team consisting of geologist Robert Schoch (Boston University), Thomas Dobecki, and John Anthony West carried out a survey of the Sphinx using seismic refraction, refraction tomography, and seismic reflection. The investigators interpreted their data to indicate shallower subsurface weathering patterns toward the back and deeper weathering toward the front, which they take to indicate that the back of the Sphinx and its ditch were carved by Khafre later than the front. They interpret their data to likewise indicate subsurface cavities in front of the front left paw, and from the left paw back along the south flank."

Obviously he is not a fan of theories alternative to the EGyptological ones. But some of his things do contain facts. That's all. But you never know who is corrupt for sure either.

Explorer

16th June 2005, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Yet again cynicism is confused with scepticism. More by deliberate design then mistake I suspect.

Sceptics discover things all the time - it's actually childish to imply otherwise.

I am a sceptic - I also love science fiction (reading it and writing it) I love a good ghost movie and I am as capable of great conceptual leaps in logic to find an answer to a question as anyone else.

It's really an irritating and incorrect misconception you are perpetuating Explorer. Is it because you feel your fantasies are somehow threatened?

Research and logical investigation would reveal a lost city, whether it be Troy or Atlantis.
However you'll notice stories about Troy described a city and battles that fit in with known history and reality, whereas stories about Atlantis involve fantasy and ridiculous superpowers and legends.

It's a little sad how believers always try to fall back on the "Having bizarre beliefs makes you a better and nmore rounded person" myth.

Most of the sceptics I have encountered here are actually far from dull and capable of talking interestingly on a wide range of subjects. Which is often more than can be said for certain other people.

Just for your education 'dreamers' and 'skeptics' are not mutually exclusive groups. Only ignorance or wilful delusion would lead anyone to believe they are.

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with everything you have said above, Ashles.

Of course there are exceptions to my generalisations, and I am glad that you number among them. However, I was responding to the total lack of imagination and the apparent stifling of any kind of natural human curiosity and wonderment of this strange and complex world, that emanates from some posters on this board.

Ashles

17th June 2005, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
You may be surprised to hear that I agree with everything you have said above, Ashles.

Of course there are exceptions to my generalisations, and I am glad that you number among them. However, I was responding to the total lack of imagination and the apparent stifling of any kind of natural human curiosity and wonderment of this strange and complex world, that emanates from some posters on this board.
This is a sceptic website so I am surprised that you don't expect this.

If I'm on a film website I'll talk about films, if I'm on a psychology website I'll talk about psychology, so it's hardly unexpected to see a high level of scepticism on a website dedicated to scepticism.

That aside all the criticism of Kilik's unfounded claims are totally justified. He has no serious evidence provided by anyone credible and that is why his claims are being criticised.

I love a good egyptian myth as much as anyone (in fact I have books about them at home - and I was actually annoyed when Stargate turned out to be such a poor film) but when claims are made that these myths and legends are facts, that's when, especially on a sceptical website, people feel it is necessary to point out errors, inconsistencies and misconceptions.

If someone said to you that Hogwarts was genuinely a real place and JK Rowling's books were based on secret facts wouldn't you challenge their claims?
And even if you wouldn't normally, would you on a sceptical website?
Or do you feel this would be stifling their sense of wonder in some way?

Is the truth no longer an important concept in its own right?

Explorer

17th June 2005, 05:34 AM

"This is a sceptic website so I am surprised that you don't expect this."

Oh come on, Ashles, you know exactly what I am trying to say!

I am trying to differentiate between useful, productive skeptical comment and that which is destructive, de-motivating and stifling.

I am not against skepticism per se, just the bad kind.

Ashles

17th June 2005, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
"This is a sceptic website so I am surprised that you don't expect this."

Oh come on, Ashles, you know exactly what I am trying to say!

I am trying to differentiate between useful, productive skeptical comment and that which is destructive, de-motivating and stifling.

I am not against skepticism per se, just the bad kind.
What the kind that points out when claims are not backed up by facts?

I really honestly don't know what you are trying to say.

Tha we should question these claims, but not, you know, too much, so that it looks like they might be incorrect or anything. Just a bit.

If people want to believe in ridiculous theories about pyramid libraries and atlantis etc. that is entirely their right.
When they start claiming these fables are facts and incorrectly use quotations and invented 'facts' then it needs to be pointed out when they are not representing the truth.

If you consider that the "bad kind" of scepticism then that's unfortunately too bad as it is actually the only type of scepticism. There aren't good and bad kinds.

I think what you are really trying to say is that you like exciting stories about pyramid tunnels and libraries, lost secrets, ancient civilisations and Atlantis, and any comments that point out how the legends aren't really based on anything real slightly upset you and make you feel disappointed.

That's a shame of course, but maybe you shouldn't read these kind of threads then.

Ashles

17th June 2005, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
Any links to reputable sources?

Originally posted by Kilik
I have found a shaft, going 29 meters [95 feet, approximately] vertically down into the ground, exactly halfway between the Chefren Pyramid and the Sphinx. At the bottom, which was filled with water, we have found a burial chamber with four pillars. In the middle is a large granite sarcophagus which I expect to be the grave of Osiris, the god,"

---ZAHI HAWASS, (Directed of the Giza Plateau, Egyptologist), In newspaper Extra Bladet (Copenhagen), January 31, 1999, "Sandpit Of Royalty", By Dorte Quist"

Is that reputable enough?

Originally posted by Kilik
I never said anyone is "reputable".
Yeah you did. You quoted him for that very reason. And it would be hard to find someone more reputable on the subject of Egyptology in the world.

So it's actually quite amusing to watch you try to suddenly distance yourelf from his authority and reputation when you realise that his opinions and research don't in fact match yours at all.

And regards your link to the 'interview' by Nova with Hawass (http://www.catchpenny.org/hawass.html) - it's very interesting, but it doesn't seem to match the text of Nova's actual website:
Interview with Hawass (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/excavation/hawass.html)

Anyway, just to clarify por Mr Hawass position from this interview with NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html) :
NOVA: Let's address the question of who built the pyramids.

HAWASS: We are lucky because we found this whole evidence of the workmen who built the pyramids and we found the artisans and Mark found the bakery and we found this settlement of the camp, and all the evidence, the hieroglyphical inscriptions of the overseer of the site of the Pyramid, the overseer of the west side of the Pyramid, the craftsman we found, the man who makes the statue of the overseer of the craftsman, the inspector of building tombs, director of building tombs -- I'm telling you all the titles. We found 25 unique new titles connected with these people. Then who built the pyramids? It was the Egyptians who built the pyramids. The Great Pyramid is dated with all the evidence, I'm telling you now to 4,600 years, the reign of Khufu. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of 104 pyramids in Egypt with superstructure. And there are 54 pyramids with substructure. There is support (that) the builders of the pyramids were Egyptians. They are not the Jews as has been said, they are not people from a lost civilization. They are not out of space. They are Egyptian and their skeletons are here, and were examined by scholars, doctors and the race of all the people we found are completely supporting that they are Egyptians.

(bolding mine)
Hope that's all clear now and you can stop quoting Kawass as support for theories and claims that he clearly doesn't hold.

Explorer

17th June 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
What the kind that points out when claims are not backed up by facts?

I really honestly don't know what you are trying to say.

Tha we should question these claims, but not, you know, too much, so that it looks like they might be incorrect or anything. Just a bit.

If people want to believe in ridiculous theories about pyramid libraries and atlantis etc. that is entirely their right.
When they start claiming these fables are facts and incorrectly use quotations and invented 'facts' then it needs to be pointed out when they are not representing the truth.

If you consider that the "bad kind" of scepticism then that's unfortunately too bad as it is actually the only type of scepticism. There aren't good and bad kinds.

I think what you are really trying to say is that you like exciting stories about pyramid tunnels and libraries, lost secrets, ancient civilisations and Atlantis, and any comments that point out how the legends aren't really based on anything real slightly upset you and make you feel disappointed.

That's a shame of course, but maybe you shouldn't read these kind of threads then.

I enjoy history, Ashles, factual history, ancient and modern.

Myths and legends have a role to play in investigative archaeology, as in the case of the discovery of Troy, cited by another poster above.

It is perfectly reasonable to use ancient writings to form theories that eventually need to be tested. However, the theory always comes first and the the test follows.

It is also perfectly reasonable and acceptable to be excited by the prospect of discovery, even if, at least at the start, that excitement is generated by the reading of myth or legend.

Skepticism is necessary for the testing stage, and then it should be used with full force, once the "evidence" is revealed. That is the whole basis of scientific objectivity.

Hypothesising is the meat and drink of the scientist, and IMHO, there is very little point in using the full force of skepticism at that stage, apart from the act of reducing the possible number of potentially fruitless investigative routes.

There is no shame in hypothesising, it is what drives science, and any motivational force towards genuine disocovery, however initially unlkely, should be welcomed.

The example of Atlantis, I feel is a good one. Plato may have fabricated the whole story, or at least embellished it, but it could also point to some foundation of an earlier civilisation, hitherto unknown.

Last week, in Austria, archaeologists discovered a brand new temple building culture, 7500 years old. This has defied the established doctrine, and puts Plato's myth into a more realistic context.

Hopefully, you will now understand my point of view about good and bad skepticism. It is more a matter of timing. If you don't, then you never will, well that is my theory at least, so don't knock it just yet with any mis-timed skepticism.

Ashles

17th June 2005, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
Last week, in Austria, archaeologists discovered a brand new temple building culture, 7500 years old. This has defied the established doctrine, and puts Plato's myth into a more realistic context.
I think this comment of yours sums up my point of view exactly.

Rather than view this information as an exciting new discovery in its own right, people feel the need to instantly crowbar it into the Atlantis myth or some similar legend.
Suddenly the relative importance of the discovery is lost or confused.

If Atlantis ever existed and there is any way of demonstrating it, it will probably eventually happen.
But analysing every archaelogical find in terms of Atlantis and how it might fit in is a very poor approach to history.
It also implies that real history not based on a legend is somehow less interesting or imoprtant.

It appears to me that your interest isn't really in history, archaeology or cutural legends as much as it is in hoping that the legends were really true and how the evidence that is really found might be used to support the stories that you enjoy.

The 'hypothesizing' of science that you describe should always be done with some kind of reason - usually some sort of evidence or observation. Scientists don't just come up with random theories out of nowhere.
You are descrbing the opposite - Atlantis existed solely as a story from a single work. But people have now taken this to be a possible fact or hypothesis. Why? Based on what?
Well what's to stop us considering Lord of the Rings as a hypothesis? How do you distinguish between the two?
Should we star looking at any ravine with a few mysterious structures as a potential Helm's Deep?

Scepticism and critical thinking should be part of the process of deciding which stories are likely to yield real results and locations and which aren't.
So of course scepticism should be involved at the hypothesis stage, and is probably part of the exact reason why Troy was considered by some serious researchers to be worthy of further investigation and research as opposed to other legends.
They looked at the story, locale and timescale and saw nothing which precluded it from really having existed as a real place.
Which makes it very different from Atlantis.

Kilik

17th June 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Yeah you did. You quoted him for that very reason. And it would be hard to find someone more reputable on the subject of Egyptology in the world.
[B]

That was response to you. It was a question posed to you. I never claimed anything, I was just showing what I said, that there are tunnels underground and their full nature or purpose is not known, or even been explored.

"So it's actually quite amusing to watch you try to suddenly distance yourelf from his authority and reputation when you realise that his opinions and research don't in fact match yours at all."

Suddenly? Realize? I am totally aware of Zahi Hawass' positions in this matter, and have seen him on tv many times. I was simply showing facts taken from his own statements. And Asked if YOU consider him reputable, not if he actually was. It's safe to assume in these basic matters anyways, that he is not fraudulent, planting anything or making anything up of the top og his head, that's what I mean as reputable. However, if you notice in that page I linked, in 1997 there was no water down there, but in 1999 all these underground water pathways are magically there. How? I don't know for sure, I guess it's possible the excavation caused it.

At first look, it appears something fishy is going on at Giza

1997
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/borissaid4.jpg
"The previous photographs of this area, showed the sarcophagus to be surrounded by solid dirt. Non of the water is evident in Dr.. Borris Said's photographs from 1997.

1999 as seen on live tv
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/osirus2zz.jpg

So corruption is a possibilty.

"And regards your link to the 'interview' by Nova with Hawass - it's very interesting, but it doesn't seem to match the text of Nova's actual website:
Interview with Hawass"

This site has the same quotes, it says it was from a NOVA question and answer session, where people could send in their own questions. Presumedly then, it happened after the interview.
http://www.towers-online.co.uk/pages/sphinx.htm

"Anyway, just to clarify por Mr Hawass position from this interview with NOVA :"

Egyptology have their own theories. BUt it doesn't surprise me that there are all sorts uses and people in charge of such ancient structures all throughout history in different periods. It doesn't surprise me there are the remains of Egyptian workers all over Egypt either who work on many project, and who also claim to be great kings who own the pyramids. Not sure that that explains the pyramids exsistence fully though

I am not representing anyone's position. That is not even a issue here. However, if someone is generally reputable in there field I think that you can assume that they do not lie about basic finds or plant things or anything like that unless specifically ordered to. That's whay I meant by reputable, and I was asking what your opinion is not what is an absolute fact. And in fact, I never implied anything about conclusions or opinions, just statements on certain facts to show a specific point, and I raised a few questions. You then are claiming I in any way said anything about anyone's stance. Just showing that there are challenges to the traditional views. The tomb exsists, underground chambers exsist, that's all.

Here's an article with speaks on these issues some
http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html

Ashles

17th June 2005, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
I am not representing anyone's position. That is not even a issue here. However, is someone is generally reputable in there field I think that you can assume that they do not lie about basic finds or plant things or anything like that unless specifically ordered to.
What makes you think that has happened in any field of archaeology ever?

I'm not even going to bother responding to your water conspiracy implications. It strikes me you could find a conspiracy in a box of Shredded Wheat.

Kilik

17th June 2005, 10:35 AM

I think it has happened in every field and is unaviodable to a degree. This is because of the human mind. It can err no matter what protocols are put in place, even "scientific" protocols. ANy find is going to be interpreted according to the preconceived notions of the people form their various fields. For example, it is the general policy to assign a ritualistic meaning to most ancient articacts. BUt that might not always be correct, for example Pythagorian theories are ancient, but not ritualistic, same thing for ancient Daoists, so I don't think assigning a ritualistic meaning to artifacts found in a Daoist area, like between CHina and Tibet would likely be correct.

It would also be normal to assume a natural explanation first for any massive structure underwater structure, because out history does not include submerged civilizations. But for example, if it was in the Atlantic it is possible it could associated with Atlantis, or at the least could now br called Atlantis. But if in the pacific, it could not be Atlantis in any sway shape or form

Ashles

17th June 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
I think it has happened in every field and is unaviodable to a degree.
I meant someone being 'ordered' to lie.

Kilik

17th June 2005, 11:19 AM

Oh, sorry about that. Nazi Germany for one. I don't think there is reason to assume a government at any time wouldn't screw with things actually, it is ultimately up to them

And the United States on cannabis research. The president at one time ordered that all evidence that did not show it to be harmful was to be ignored, and so far there is no accepted evidence on cannabis from the US because of this, I saw that on a documentary hosted by Woody Harrelson, can't remember the name though. And with all the technology and means to make things available to the public, there is the means to keep things secret too

Ashles

17th June 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
Oh, sorry about that. Nazi Germany for one. I don't think there is reason to assume a government at any time wouldn't screw with things actually, it is ultimately up to them

And the United States on cannabis research. The president at one time ordered that all evidence that did not show it to be harmful was to be ignored, and so far there is no accepted evidence on cannabis from the US because of this, I saw that on a documentary hosted by Woody Harrelson, can't remember the name though. And with all the technology and means to make things available to the public, there is the means to keep things secret to
So evidence from TV again. Okay.

And the Nazi regime is a teensy bit different from current archaelogical teams. And anyway I still don't know of an example where ancient lost civilisations and secret libraries of ancient knowledge have been supressed on orders, even by the Nazis.

Still it's good to know you finally have reports from reputable sources.

I can't argue with the reliable authority of Woody Harrelson.

Psiload

17th June 2005, 11:36 AM

Not only is Zahi Hawass engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth about the archaeological findings beneath the Giza Plateu, he's also apparently involved in a criminal theft ring. Here we see a set of jacked hubcaps being stashed in the tombs for later sale on the black market.

http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/borissaid4.jpg For shame!

BillC

17th June 2005, 11:44 AM

Actually, when I first saw the photo, my first thought was that was a bicycle with a bent wheel over on the right side.

Psiload

17th June 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by BillC
Actually, when I first saw the photo, my first thought was that was a bicycle with a bent wheel over on the right side. A stolen bicycle.

Ashles

17th June 2005, 12:07 PM

Where did all the water go?

Explorer

18th June 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Ashles
I think this comment of yours sums up my point of view exactly.

Rather than view this information as an exciting new discovery in its own right, people feel the need to instantly crowbar it into the Atlantis myth or some similar legend.
Suddenly the relative importance of the discovery is lost or confused.

If Atlantis ever existed and there is any way of demonstrating it, it will probably eventually happen.
But analysing every archaelogical find in terms of Atlantis and how it might fit in is a very poor approach to history.
It also implies that real history not based on a legend is somehow less interesting or imoprtant.

It appears to me that your interest isn't really in history, archaeology or cutural legends as much as it is in hoping that the legends were really true and how the evidence that is really found might be used to support the stories that you enjoy.

The 'hypothesizing' of science that you describe should always be done with some kind of reason - usually some sort of evidence or observation. Scientists don't just come up with random theories out of nowhere.
You are descrbing the opposite - Atlantis existed solely as a story from a single work. But people have now taken this to be a possible fact or hypothesis. Why? Based on what?
Well what's to stop us considering Lord of the Rings as a hypothesis? How do you distinguish between the two?
Should we star looking at any ravine with a few mysterious structures as a potential Helm's Deep?

Scepticism and critical thinking should be part of the process of deciding which stories are likely to yield real results and locations and which aren't.
So of course scepticism should be involved at the hypothesis stage, and is probably part of the exact reason why Troy was considered by some serious researchers to be worthy of further investigation and research as opposed to other legends.
They looked at the story, locale and timescale and saw nothing which precluded it from really having existed as a real place.
Which makes it very different from Atlantis.

You would make an excellent spin doctor, Ashles!

However, you are completely off target with your drift, except your last two paragraphs, which essentially are agreeing with my point.

I visited the island of Thera in the southern mediterranean a few years ago. There, Greek archaeologists at the time, thought that the Minoan style civilisation they uncovered from under the pumice, could have been a candidate for Plato's Atlantis. It may well have been. It had a number of geophysical characteristics that could have been interpreted as being similar Plato's descriptions.

Those archaeologists were not woo woos, they were serious people engaged in scientific research. There is very little difference, IMHO, in their mindset, and that of Mr Schliemann.

I doubt very much that the romantic version of Atlantis described by Plato ever existed, but it could be an indicator of an earlier civilisation that pre-dates the current doctrine. The recent find in Austria and Germany may not be Plato's Atlantis (I never said it was, as you implied in your response above), but it is an example of the case.

Correa Neto

18th June 2005, 06:29 AM

Wait one second.

-Thera/Santorini is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic ocean and is 10Ky old?
-Helike is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic ocean and is 10Ky old?
-[add Atlantis location claim here] is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic Ocean and is 10Ky old?

If not, its not Atlantis. It may have been used by Plato to create Atlantis, but it is not Atlantis. And also, are there any evidences that Plato could have knew of [add Atlantis location claim here]?

Explorer, yes, to create hypothesis is within scientific methodology. But hypothesis are created based on REAL possibilites and evidence. Now, before making hypothesis about Atlantis, one must check a couple of things.
-10Ky old civilizations may have existed?
-The knoweledge of the existence of these people could have survived up to the time of the greeks?
-Are there any geological phenomena able to submerge a continent in a short ammount of time?
-Are there any evidences for a sunken continent in the Atlantic Ocean?

The answer for the first two can be a "maybe". More precisely "improbable but possible".

But the answer for the last two ones is just a plain and simple NO. And there are no "what ifs" here. Not even "maybe a mechanism unknown to science".

As for KillikÂ´s cover-ups...
Why would a researcher want to hide a discovery that could bring him/her instant and everlasting fame, plus enough cash to continue research for the years to come?
These cover-ups conspiracy claims are laughable. The last resort of those who see their fantasies crumbling.

Kilik

18th June 2005, 09:11 AM

There's nothing crumbling here. What is your explanation then? That the magnificent pillars and the water are still under the rock in those pictures? I don't know, that seems unlikely anyways, because the EGyptologists stated they found it with the pillars there already, but they weren't always there

There could be many reasons. It could be that the government just said no, it's what we say it is. It could be that the main Egyptologists are just very loyal to Egypt and just wouldn't want to ever admit anyting that goes beyond their chronology. It could be that they really are that blinded by their own programming and what they've been taught in their field, and really are that foolish or maybe just got it wrong, or turned a blind eye to all the "restoration" work down there.

ANd that millions of dollars would be all of a sudden dished out is another assumption. It could be the total opposite. They might have a hard time to get that funded, because there aren't that many pre historic civilization researchers, and there is no such field really. So no matter what proof, it is totally possile that no specific field would be interested in going beyond their field. Why should we assume a Egyptologist would be interested in anything but egyptological ideas and restoring the Sphinx for national pride, anymore than a zoologist would be interesed in anything but what their zoological field concerns, or a private company even? That's almost like saying of course, do you think zoologists, or texaco, wouldn't jump at the chance to find Atlantis? So I don't think the assumption that everyone would be greatly funded for this is necessarily correct.

ANd think about it. Zahi Hawass already has enough funding to " continue research for the years to come? ", and is one of the highest ranking and most well known in his country. However, just like in anything in real life, he might know that then all his funding could go to someone else. Someone finding atlantis. He doesn't want that, obviously. He wants the funding for Egyptological purposes and for himself. He for one, is not in need of funding!

There's a lot at stake here, and sometimes they might just think they, or the country, or well whatever, is doing fine with the status quo without these finds.

They have even said they are more interested in restoring the Giza monuments than find evidence of a lost civilization. They've stated that in the links I linked earlier themselves

Actually, I don't think they would get anymore funding than they do now. How do you know secret chambers would improve tourism more than retoring the sphinx and adding pillars and stuff.

It wasn't even a researcher for a university that found the megaliths off Cuba, it was a company! And they weren't looking for megaliths either. Only a coule hunderd thousand has been dished out to explore that now, and a coule hundred apparently, is hardly anything considering the equipment and time necessary

They're just not going to dish out cash for anything that isn't in a already established field, or that doesn't somehow have political implications

Kilik

18th June 2005, 09:31 AM

But anyways, here are a couple more pictures from this site
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html

"Several bars at the top had been pulled back. Climbing up over this proved to be tricky, and this was the only way in."
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/OSOut/preview/os3_b.jpg

"My leg became caught on the first attempt through the bent bars, and the fall over the otherside is of some length."
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/OSOut/preview/os3bb_.jpg

"The water pipe was ripe with promise of what lay underground. For it indicated extensive, yet covert water pumping activities. Since it was disconnected, these operations were no longer active. But they gave the appearance of relatively recent pumping work."
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/OSOut/preview/os3_d.jpg

It seems a possibiltiy that at least some of the "restoration" work is being called the original state

Suspection of possible corruption however, is not the same as like thinking you were abducted by aliens or something like that. Not at all.

Kilik

18th June 2005, 10:17 AM

Someone earlier mentioned that Egyptians generally didn't do human sacrifice, and that is why it isn't connected to mexico. Now I don't know, but there seems to be some evidence that the first Kings of Egypt, and the supposed "first" pyramid builders and mummifiers did-
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/religion_and_tomb_development.htm

" and it is reasonable to assume that they practiced some form of ritual suicide."

But how come? Why is that a reasonable assumption? Why does ancient have to mean ritualistic?

Noone refers to Jim Jones as ritualistic do they?

Or if that's not the right example, then noone refers to Saddam Hussien as ritualistic do they?

Correa Neto

18th June 2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
...snip...There could be many reasons. It could be that the government just said no, it's what we say it is. It could be that the main Egyptologists are just very loyal to Egypt and just wouldn't want to ever admit anyting that goes beyond their chronology. It could be that they really are that blinded by their own programming and what they've been taught in their field, and really are that foolish or maybe just got it wrong, or turned a blind eye to all the "restoration" work down there.

Nonsense.
Why would EgyptÂ´s government try to cover up such thing? They have more important issues to deal with.

Scientists are loyal to truth. I know a lot of academics who more than once dumped their pet theories as soon as enough data indicated they were wrong. And dozens of archeologists graduate every year. And all of them are "blinded by their own programming "? None of them want to make a great breakthrough?

But I know few woos who were intelligent -and noble- enough to do the same. But I saw a lot of foolish people that turn a blind eye to every piece of evidence showing their pet fantasies are wrong.

Originally posted by Kilik
...snip...

ANd think about it. Zahi Hawass already has enough funding to " continue research for the years to come? ", and is one of the highest ranking and most well known in his country. However, just like in anything in real life, he might know that then all his funding could go to someone else. Someone finding atlantis. He doesn't want that, obviously. He wants the funding for Egyptological purposes and for himself. He for one, is not in need of funding!

He has enough funding? Are you sure? And eve if hen has, what about all the other researchers?

Finding Atlantis?

ATLANTIS IS A MYTH. IT WILL NEVER BE FOUND.

I know it because Edgar Cayce told me. Now, is that a source you would accept?

A researcher donÂ´t want Atlantis to be found just because he will loose funds? More nonsense. Note that this is also an accusation. You evidences are? And even if true, what about all the other researchers that would benefit from the finding, eh?

Originally posted by Kilik
There's a lot at stake here, and sometimes they might just think they, or the country, or well whatever, is doing fine with the status quo without these finds.

They have even said they are more interested in restoring the Giza monuments than find evidence of a lost civilization. They've stated that in the links I linked earlier themselves

Actually, I don't think they would get anymore funding than they do now. How do you know secret chambers would improve tourism more than retoring the sphinx and adding pillars and stuff.

Stop blaming the stabilshment, status quo, etc. Its sheer nonsense. IÂ´ll write again- the last resource of woos whose fantasies crumble. No evidence? OOOOOHHH! It was hidden by the stabilishment-evil-government-big corporations-illuminati-World Government-conspiracy members.

Are you sure they would not get more funding after such a fenomenal discovery? No you are not. And you are dead wrong on it. Private and governamental money would flow.

And people would for sure travel to see these "mysterious sites". They already do - even to the fake ones.

Originally posted by Kilik
It wasn't even a researcher for a university that found the megaliths off Cuba, it was a company! And they weren't looking for megaliths either. Only a coule hunderd thousand has been dished out to explore that now, and a coule hundred apparently, is hardly anything considering the equipment and time necessary

What megaliths? You posted pictures and links to submerged sinkholes, a natural feature!!! Woo sites and tourist agencies with their own agenda -make cash out of naive and or ignorant people- tell you they are not, but those are known to be natural features a looong time ago. I ven remember seeing even a Jacques Costeau documentary on it during my childhood. Get your sorces straight, abandon the methodology of looking just at what fits with your views.

Originally posted by Kilik
They're just not going to dish out cash for anything that isn't in a already established field, or that doesn't somehow have political implications

More nonsense. This sort of claim is made by those who donÂ´t have a clue about how science and economy work.

Kilik

18th June 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Nonsense.
Why would EgyptÂ´s government try to cover up such thing? They have more important issues to deal with.

So it would better to just cover it up

"
Scientists are loyal to truth."

Yeah. Okay. Being a scientist means you are more loyal to truth. Lol. That is the real delusion.

"But I know few woos who were intelligent -and noble- enough to do the same. "

This is just more skeptics trying to draw the line of their own skeptic beleif system

"He has enough funding? Are you sure? And eve if hen has, what about all the other researchers?"

They might steal his thunder. Well, according you this would steal his attention

"I know it because Edgar Cayce told me. Now, is that a source you would accept?"

No, but if it is confirmed by other mystery teachings, or physical evidence underwater

" And even if true, what about all the other researchers that would benefit from the finding, eh?"

Keep em away from it, keep them in the dark. Makes perfect sense

" No evidence? OOOOOHHH! It was hidden by the stabilishment-evil-government-big corporations-illuminati-World Government-conspiracy members."

Nothing I wrote is based on lack of evidence. But on photographic evidence,

"Are you sure they would not get more funding after such a fenomenal discovery? No you are not. And you are dead wrong on it. Private and governamental money would flow."

Government granted money? Not all that much, that money is needed to fin the WMDs. Private companies are generally interested in their own field of profit making

"And people would for sure travel to see these "mysterious sites". They already do - even to the fake ones."

Yes, and fake ones in Egypt that claim to be real. And they don't let people in the underground tunnels now do they. Tourist are allowed to go into the tomb of Osiris now? Or other tunnels? I doubt that

"What megaliths? You posted pictures and links to submerged sinkholes, a natural feature!!! Woo sites and tourist agencies with their own agenda -make cash out of naive and or ignorant people- tell you they are not, but those are known to be natural features a looong time ago. I ven remember seeing even a Jacques Costeau documentary on it during my childhood. Get your sorces straight, abandon the methodology of looking just at what fits with your views."

Here's the real nonsense. I posted National Geographic, and two scientific sites basic on genuine scientific hypotheses and based on evidence.

These particalar ones were found in 2001, and then I read that in 2004 $200,000(apparently not much for what is needed to study that deep, submarines and **** maybe) was granted to now further study. I have nothing, by anyone anywhere suggesting they are natural

You were not a child in 2001

"More nonsense. This sort of claim is made by those who donÂ´t have a clue about how science and economy work. "

Not nonsense. Totally true actually. The portion a government giver for this type of research is not that big in the big picture. Maybe if they thought it could benefit them or bring more in profit than now. I don't know that atlantis would be any more popular than the plain old mysterious pyramids, they don't really know either.

I doubt either they or you have done market research on that situation

Or here's simple explanation. Scientists are human, just as likely to be corrupt or lie than anyone else, just as likely to be biased according to their beleifs , prefrences, interpretations, society and programming, ESPECIALLY with all those scientific paradigms and points of view. No "loyalty" to
the modern sciences' views or protocols can change that or do anything about that. You make science out to be the answer to all of humans problems from the beginning of humans on. LOL!

Kilik

18th June 2005, 06:16 PM

Controversy reigns in many areas of study, to the point of stopping further study
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050615/ts_latimes/abonetopickinindonesia

Explorer

19th June 2005, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Wait one second.

-Thera/Santorini is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic ocean and is 10Ky old?
-Helike is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic ocean and is 10Ky old?
-[add Atlantis location claim here] is a continent or large island located in the Atlantic Ocean and is 10Ky old?

If not, its not Atlantis. It may have been used by Plato to create Atlantis, but it is not Atlantis. And also, are there any evidences that Plato could have knew of [add Atlantis location claim here]?

Explorer, yes, to create hypothesis is within scientific methodology. But hypothesis are created based on REAL possibilites and evidence. Now, before making hypothesis about Atlantis, one must check a couple of things.
-10Ky old civilizations may have existed?
-The knoweledge of the existence of these people could have survived up to the time of the greeks?
-Are there any geological phenomena able to submerge a continent in a short ammount of time?
-Are there any evidences for a sunken continent in the Atlantic Ocean?

The answer for the first two can be a "maybe". More precisely "improbable but possible".

But the answer for the last two ones is just a plain and simple NO. And there are no "what ifs" here. Not even "maybe a mechanism unknown to science".

As for KillikÂ´s cover-ups...
Why would a researcher want to hide a discovery that could bring him/her instant and everlasting fame, plus enough cash to continue research for the years to come?
These cover-ups conspiracy claims are laughable. The last resort of those who see their fantasies crumbling.

You draw too many conclusions from my post.

I repeat again, that the Atlantis myth could be merely indicative of an earlier civilisation up to 10K old, as you youself imply.

Thera is a candidate as it was indeed rapidly submerged in a cataclysmic event, but that and the fact that a civilisation did exist on the island (which was actually Bronze Age and no earlier) are the only pointers. This is not enough to draw any further conclusions, so the search for a better candidate, IMHO, has to continue.

Plato himself, did not "create" Atlantis, as you suggest, as he was already writing from tertiary sources about a myth that was received knowledge.

Your statement:

"Explorer, yes, to create hypothesis is within scientific methodology. But hypothesis are created based on REAL possibilites and evidence"

Hypotheses, with respect, are based on a mix of "evidence" and pure speculation. That speculation in many of the scientific pioneering cases in the past can be considered to be an example of the application of the "dream" and "wonderment" cited in the my other posts above.

My point has always been this one. i.e. mis-placed skepticism at an early hypothetical stage may inhibit scientific research and discovery. Now, I am not talking about corporate research, which is driven by commercial needs, I am talking about individual motivation, such as the Gallileos of this world.

Please be aware, Ashles and Correa, that I do not enjoy populist pseudo-scientific publications on ancient history. I subcribe only to the excellent and well-respected "Current Archeaology" monthly magazine, and the occasional "New Scientist".

Correa Neto

19th June 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
You draw too many conclusions from my post.

I repeat again, that the Atlantis myth could be merely indicative of an earlier civilisation up to 10K old, as you youself imply.

Thera is a candidate as it was indeed rapidly submerged in a cataclysmic event, but that and the fact that a civilisation did exist on the island (which was actually Bronze Age and no earlier) are the only pointers. This is not enough to draw any further conclusions, so the search for a better candidate, IMHO, has to continue.

Plato himself, did not "create" Atlantis, as you suggest, as he was already writing from tertiary sources about a myth that was received knowledge.

As far as I know, the first registers about Atlantis were from him. He says that the knoweledge about its existence came from the egyptians, but again, as far as I know, nothing about Atlantis has ever been found in Egypt. So, these tertiary sources might as well not be real - when it comes to a civilization called Atlantis. Now, Plato could very well have created the tale based in information about real cities that suffered cataclisms, such as Helike - and that was much younger than the Santorini eruption.

Originally posted by Explorer
Your statement:

"Explorer, yes, to create hypothesis is within scientific methodology. But hypothesis are created based on REAL possibilites and evidence"

Hypotheses, with respect, are based on a mix of "evidence" and pure speculation. That speculation in many of the scientific pioneering cases in the past can be considered to be an example of the application of the "dream" and "wonderment" cited in the my other posts above.

My point has always been this one. i.e. mis-placed skepticism at an early hypothetical stage may inhibit scientific research and discovery. Now, I am not talking about corporate research, which is driven by commercial needs, I am talking about individual motivation, such as the Gallileos of this world.

Please be aware, Ashles and Correa, that I do not enjoy populist pseudo-scientific publications on ancient history. I subcribe only to the excellent and well-respected "Current Archeaology" monthly magazine, and the occasional "New Scientist".

The problem is where to draw the line between a sound probing and baseless speculation. In the example in question, any hypothesis about the possible existence of an island-continent in the middle of the Atlanctic Ocean, is bound to end with a negative conclusion. There are no evidence for such a sunken continent mass -sea floor surveys would have found evidence for that by now- and there are no geological processes capable of sinking such a large landmass so fast.

And Killik is not only subscribing to baseless speculation, but he is also making accusations - without showing any evidence.

Correa Neto

19th June 2005, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Kilik

...snip...
Yeah. Okay. Being a scientist means you are more loyal to truth. Lol. That is the real delusion....snip...

Are you stating that woos are the ones who really have a compromise with the truth? ThatÂ´s laughable dellusion, since they are not exactly known for good data handling. The usual methodology is to ignore the vast ammount of data that denies their fantasies and, when left with nowhere to hide, appeal for conspiracy theory. Not to mention the people who are making money out of belivers.

Originally posted by Kilik
..snip...Tourist are allowed to go into the tomb of Osiris now? Or other tunnels? I doubt that

Ah yeah, otherwise they would find the truth... Preservation is not the real issue...

Originally posted by Kilik

...snip...Nothing I wrote is based on lack of evidence. But on photographic evidence,

...snip...Here's the real nonsense. I posted National Geographic, and two scientific sites basic on genuine scientific hypotheses and based on evidence.

These particalar ones were found in 2001, and then I read that in 2004 $200,000(apparently not much for what is needed to study that deep, submarines and **** maybe) was granted to now further study. I have nothing, by anyone anywhere suggesting they are natural

So, the link below, posted by you is not a blue hole?

http://www.belizenews.com/files/pages/town/artpark/blueholesm.jpg

And its not a sinkhole?
Get you sources and facts straight. Or your posting of links is made in such a messy way that you donÂ´t care taking a time to check what you are posting?

Regarding CubaÂ´s "sunken city" havenÂ´t you read the paragraph where the director of research from Cuba's Natural History Museum says they could be natural formations? And it sounds quite fishy that no news surfaced since 2002, the date of the article... Oh, yes, Fidel Castro must be hiding the truth abour Atlantis...

Originally posted by Kilik

...snip...
Or here's simple explanation. Scientists are human, just as likely to be corrupt or lie than anyone else, just as likely to be biased according to their beleifs , prefrences, interpretations, society and programming, ESPECIALLY with all those scientific paradigms and points of view. No "loyalty" to
the modern sciences' views or protocols can change that or do anything about that. You make science out to be the answer to all of humans problems from the beginning of humans on. LOL!

Woos have no bias but scientists have? Laughable.
Woos have no paradigms? Laughable.
Killik, your post has zero evidence. Just the usual rant about stabilishment, government and conspiracies. You have no evidence for any of these conspiracies. Do you have enough evidence to support your claims that anyone is hiding or manipulating data? You accused a certain researcher. Can you prove your accusations?

An yes, science does provide tools to answer to mankindÂ´s problems much more than woo lore. What answer to mankindÂ´s problems woo lore has provide?
Pyramid power?
Crystal healing?
Chi?
Uri Geller?
ROFLMAOL!!!

Kilik

20th June 2005, 12:13 AM

Here's a more recent update article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374107/posts

Actually, I may have been wrong stating I read the money spent as being 200,000. It's possible it was 2 million, but whatever, because that' means a lot of previous held beleifs in a lot of careers could change, that just increases corruption.

I never specifically accused anyone

And there is some good evidence of mand made elements at the Yonaguni in the pacific
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni_schoch1.html
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm

Explorer

20th June 2005, 12:33 AM

"There are no evidence for such a sunken continent mass -sea floor surveys would have found evidence for that by now- and there are no geological processes capable of sinking such a large landmass so fast."

said Correa

As I said, the Atlantis that Plato described perhaps did not exist, but it could have been based on an hitherto unknown and much earlier civilisation similar to the type found in Austria recently.

Underwater archaeology is a different ball game. The sedimentary processes and rapid erosion caused by the sea can easily and quickly cover or destroy key features to pin-point sites for survey.

We know that coastal cities can become covered by the sea, like the ancient port of Alexandria in Egypt, and I believe that sites such as this would be a fertile ground for archaeological research. We may not find Plato's Atlantis but there is still much out there to be discovered.

hodgy

20th June 2005, 01:57 AM

Suppose that tomorrow they find actual sunken temples, gold coins, pottery etc... near Cuba and Indonesia.

Which one gets to be Atlantis?

Ashles

20th June 2005, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
As I said, the Atlantis that Plato described perhaps did not exist, but it could have been based on an hitherto unknown and much earlier civilisation similar to the type found in Austria recently.
So Atlantis did not exist then.

Atlantis isn't an umbrella term for all civilisations older than the egyptians.

There may well have been older civilisations that we have not discovered yet. No-one is disputing that.

But Atlantis has a very specific legend of high technological levels, specified location, and all sorts of pseudscientific nonsense.

It would again be like saying that Helm's Deep might have been based on very ancient fortresses yet to be discovered.

The Atlantis that Plato described is the only Atlantis. There isn't another one. If that one doesn't exist then Atlantis doesn't exist.

I don't know why you can't just be impressed with the discovery of ancient civilisations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Atlantis or it's story.

As hodgy says - are you going to read about every ancient discovery constantly thinking about its relation to Atlantis?
How pointless.

What is the point of this "sense of wonder" you describe, if it is just for making up facts?
If Atlantis didn't exist what is the point of referring to it with every new discovery? It just loses the whole point.

It seems clear to most historians that Atlantis wasn't based on any place other than Plato's Greece in the same way that Swift made up countries with tiny people or horses to illustrate human frailties he observed in England at the time.
You don't find people looking for Lilliput - so why the continuing obsession with Atlantis?

Correa Neto

20th June 2005, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by hodgy
Suppose that tomorrow they find actual sunken temples, gold coins, pottery etc... near Cuba and Indonesia.

Which one gets to be Atlantis?

The one that is turns out to have been located in a large island in the Atlantic Ocean and hosted a civilization that made war with Mediterranean people and disappeared 10Ky ago.

That would be Atlantis. If one of the above criteria is not fulfilled, then its not Atlantis.

Explorer

21st June 2005, 12:36 AM

"What is the point of this "sense of wonder" you describe, if it is just for making up facts?"

said Ashles

You cannot make up facts Ashles, that is a contradiction in terms.

"Atlantis isn't an umbrella term for all civilisations older than the egyptians"

I quite agree, but if you read my post again, you will see that I have never said that.

"I don't know why you can't just be impressed with the discovery of ancient civilisations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Atlantis or it's story." retorted Ashles.

I am impressed, very impressed, and surely if you have read all of my posts properly you would have already come to that conclusion.

Again, I repeat ad nauseum, that Plato's Atlantis may be a myth based on an earlier hitherto unknown civilisation, and as such is a contribution to the debate. It may not have existed beyond the "Pillars of Hercules". It may not have even been a continent. It may not have been submerged, who knows? However, the recent European discoveries (of which I am very, very impressed) have shown that the established doctrine i.e. that the earliest civilisation (in the conventional meaning of the word) was Eygyptian, is erroneous.

Ashles

21st June 2005, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
You cannot make up facts Ashles, that is a contradiction in terms.
Not when someone is inventing fictions and then presentaing them as facts. That should be fairly obvious.

I quite agree, but if you read my post again, you will see that I have never said that.
You are attempting to infer a connection between ancient civilisations that clearly are nothing like how Attlantis is described.
An old civilisation is discovered and immediately you start wondering if it is what Atlantis is based on. Yet there is no reason to do so. Atlantis is not in any way relevant to the discoveries in Austria.
I can't imagine any ancient civilisation would be discovered without your first thought being "Maybe THAT's what Atlantis is based on".
And that's just not a serious approach to archaeological discovery.

I am impressed, very impressed, and surely if you have read all of my posts properly you would have already come to that conclusion.
Sadly it seems like you are impressed for the wrong reasons. What seems to excite you about this discovery is solely in what way it can be linked to Atlantis.
And if the site is in reality nothing to do with Atlantis then what you seem to find interesting about this discovery is no longer applicable.

Again, I repeat ad nauseum, that Plato's Atlantis may be a myth based on an earlier hitherto unknown civilisation, and as such is a contribution to the debate. It may not have existed beyond the "Pillars of Hercules". It may not have even been a continent. It may not have been submerged, who knows? However, the recent European discoveries (of which I am very, very impressed) have shown that the established doctrine i.e. that the earliest civilisation (in the conventional meaning of the word) was Eygyptian, is erroneous.
The start of that paragraph has little or no relation to the second half.
(And BTW what about the Sumerians? It was they who were actually considered to be the first civilisation.)

Nobody should be claiming that our knowledge on ancient civilisations is complete.

But Atlantis just is not relevent to serious archaeology. The story and location do not make any sense in a historical context.
added to the fact that it is so clearly a morality tale and not intended as a genuine historical reference.

Correa Neto

21st June 2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Explorer

...snip...However, the recent European discoveries (of which I am very, very impressed) have shown that the established doctrine i.e. that the earliest civilisation (in the conventional meaning of the word) was Eygyptian, is erroneous.

I think that you have the wrong idea about the "estabilished doctrine". As Ashles pointed out, Sumerians are known to be older than Egyptians in the Middle East. Harappans (from the Hindus valley) are possibly a bit older than the Sumerians (there are evidences of commercial contacts between the two peoples). And there are also a number of claims about ruins in Malta, that may be about the same age, but the dates obtained are not yet very precise (but I may be outdated when it comes to this).

Note that if the old dates for Malta are OK, then the recent European discoveries are not so unexpected.

ThereÂ´s no real "shaking of the basis of estabilished doctrine" here.

Ashles

21st June 2005, 08:34 AM

It might be interesting at this point to take a step back and look at the Atlantis legend with a fresh pair of eyes.

Firstly (because I don't see this very often) here is a translation of Plato's actual original text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/critias.txt) for reference.

It is important to remember that this is the only source for the entire legend. This one story.

And it is very clear on several points.

1) The story takes place 9,000 years before Plato writes about it - so just under 9,500 BC, or 11 and a half thousand years ago
Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the
sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have
taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles
and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe.
2) The story is about a conflict between Athens and Atlantis - therefore it is also claiming that Athens was around at the same time
Of the
combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have
been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on
the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis,
3) The Atlanteans are NOT HEROES. They are the villains of the piece and the message of the story is to illustrate how self-satisfied they had become

4) The location and size of Atlantis are very clear
those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles
.....

were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as
was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and
when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of
mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.
Atlantis is enormous! Absolutely colossal!
And as for their army...
As summed up by this page (http://skeptic.com/atlantis/atlantis2.html)
"The area around the royal city provided 60,000 military officers, 10,000 chariots, 240,000 cavalry, 120,000 hoplites, 600,000 archers, slingers, stone and javelin throwers, and 24,000 ships. And this was from only 1 of the 10 divisions of the country!"

5) Curiously the Atlanteans worship all the same gods as the Athenians

6) Critias (who is the character telling the story) can't even get his explanation of how he heard the story straight (did he hear it from a poet or has he studied Solon's work all his life as he claims?). It seems like a clue that we are not meant to take this literally

7) The story itself is being told to Plato by Critias who heard it from a poet/read it in Solon's papers. Solon (a famous hisorian) apparently was told it by a priest in Egypt.
Athens has forgotten their own history, but luckily the Egyptians were remembering it for them. (As a side note why then did Athens not advance in technology in 9,000 years?)

8) Egypt had itself apparently been conquered by the Atlantans, but curiously there is no record of this in Egypt. How suspicious that a story related by an Athenianan to illustrate the greatness of the Athenians describes Egypt as having been unable to defend itself where Athens did.
And why did Egypt not keep a record of this?

9) The Atlantans built a HUGE ditch that we've never located
I will now describe the plain, as it was fashioned by nature and
by the labours of many generations of kings through long ages. It
was for the most part rectangular and oblong, and where falling out of
the straight line followed the circular ditch. The depth, and width,
and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that
a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have
been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told. It was
excavated to the depth of a hundred, feet, and its breadth was a
stadium everywhere; it was carried round the whole of the plain, and
was ten thousand stadia in length.
The exact length of a stadia seems to be controverial, but it seems like this distance must be at least 500-1,000 miles, but many estimates are 10,000 miles and higher

10) I could go on, but from reading the story it gets harder and harder to see how it has been taken seriously by anyone, let alone by so many people who don't even appear to know the actual story itself.

A nice summing up on this page (http://skeptic.com/atlantis/atlantis3.html)
What Would Plato Think About Today's Atlantis Stories?

Plato would be shocked to find his villains transformed into heroes. And he would be surprised to hear that Atlanteans are now said to possess superior wisdom, after he took pains to point out that they were destroyed because they made unwise choices.

The idea of a Golden Age is so appealing that it has overshadowed Platoâ€™s original lesson. A Golden Age and hidden wisdom is attractive because it is always located in the past or future, a very convenient arrangement for people who are dissatisfied with the present, but donâ€™t know what to do to improve it. Platoâ€™s lifeâ€™s passion was to discover the best way to organize society with the means available in the here and now, so he would likely disapprove of belief systems which place solutions out of reach in some mystical time.

Correa Neto

21st June 2005, 11:26 AM

ThatÂ´s just another example of how carefull is the way woos handle information.

Pick up small bits that are compatible ("ancient forgotten sunken civilization") with your pet fantasy ("a forgotten golden age"), forget what does not match (a huge ammount of data), add pieces made by yourself and very reliable sources, such as mediums (advanced technology, powerfull crystals, flying saucers) and add a lame excuse for all that does not fit (conspiracy theory).

VoilÃ¡: Woo theory!!! It must be true (specially when in colored caps)!

An they dare say that the "evil-scientists-from-the-stabilishment-the-governments-and-their-hidden-agenda" are the ones who twist the truth and hide data.

Kilik

21st June 2005, 06:03 PM

There are serious theories that it is not just purely a tale.

There are researches who beleive 9000 years and 900 years were mixed up.

There is a theory Atlantis is the city of Tantalis

Homer's account of Troy is supposed to be very heavy on incredible and even supernatural parts about the gods of Troy, whereas the story of Atlantis is not at all really about gods or things like that. Obviously, a lot of the aspects of Troy accounts are not true even though it existed

The accounts of both Troy and Atlantis are said to be oral traditions passed down. Atlantis is said to be an oral tradition, but specifically from Plato's own family

It's not so odd that realistic bits are known, with added stories to make a point. It doesn't have to be one or another

Atlantis can be associated with Poseidon and Atlas. So then it would be in a sense, the ancestor of Greece

http://www.unmuseum.org/atlantis.htm

"So is the story of Atlantis just a fable used by Plato to make a point? Or is there some reason to think he was referring to a real place? Well, at numerous points in the dialogues Plato's characters refer to the story of Atlantis as "genuine history" and it being within "the realm of fact." Plato also seems to put into the story a lot of detail about Atlantis that would be unnecessary if he had intended to use it only as a literary device."

And I saw some sites saying the coming on of the Ice Age was not always so gradual and gentle

Yes, it is a fragmented tale, it wasn't even finished. Any tale 9000 years old will be changed some. That doesn't mean it should be completely disregarded

Kilik

21st June 2005, 06:51 PM

Also, Diodorus wrote that Phoenicians had at one time been to an immense Atlantic island , and asociated that area with Mt. Atlas and the God Poseidan

Diodurus was concerned with history in his writings

http://www.atlantisquest.com/Myth.html

Explorer

22nd June 2005, 12:28 AM

"Sadly it seems like you are impressed for the wrong reasons. What seems to excite you about this discovery is solely in what way it can be linked to Atlantis"

Ashles, if you continue to believe that after all that I have said, then there is no hope or prospect to convince you otherwise.

You have formed an opinion of me, which is entirely mis-placed and prefer to keep me firmly in the pseudo camp. However, that is your problem, not mine!

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Explorer
Ashles, if you continue to believe that after all that I have said, then there is no hope or prospect to convince you otherwise.

You have formed an opinion of me, which is entirely mis-placed and prefer to keep me firmly in the pseudo camp.
That is correct, and every post you make appears to reinforce my opinion.

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
There are serious theories that it is not just purely a tale.

There are researches who beleive 9000 years and 900 years were mixed up.

There is a theory Atlantis is the city of Tantalis

Homer's account of Troy is supposed to be very heavy on incredible and even supernatural parts about the gods of Troy, whereas the story of Atlantis is not at all really about gods or things like that. Obviously, a lot of the aspects of Troy accounts are not true even though it existed

The accounts of both Troy and Atlantis are said to be oral traditions passed down. Atlantis is said to be an oral tradition, but specifically from Plato's own family

It's not so odd that realistic bits are known, with added stories to make a point. It doesn't have to be one or another

Atlantis can be associated with Poseidon and Atlas. So then it would be in a sense, the ancestor of Greece

http://www.unmuseum.org/atlantis.htm

"So is the story of Atlantis just a fable used by Plato to make a point? Or is there some reason to think he was referring to a real place? Well, at numerous points in the dialogues Plato's characters refer to the story of Atlantis as "genuine history" and it being within "the realm of fact." Plato also seems to put into the story a lot of detail about Atlantis that would be unnecessary if he had intended to use it only as a literary device."

And I saw some sites saying the coming on of the Ice Age was not always so gradual and gentle

Yes, it is a fragmented tale, it wasn't even finished. Any tale 9000 years old will be changed some. That doesn't mean it should be completely disregarded
Eh? You just said that researchers believe the 9000 and 900 may have been mixed up. Yet you're saying it's a 9000 year old story.

And anyway how do you 'mix up' 9000 and 900 years in a story with this level of detail?

And then you say the story is an oral tradition passed down to Plato - but if the story is true then he has just been told this story by Critias.

Looks like you are cherry picking bits of various theories to support the untenable position that the story is a real one.
And you are ignoring when your theories contradict each other.

And where does the Ice Age sudenly fit in?

And if you are not aware of standard narrative techniques of stating the story is real, and adding high levels of detail when writing a political satire or commentary then you really need to read more on the subject. Swift is a great example and very relevent with his creation of many fabulous countries to illustrate a contemporary issue.

Thanks Kilik, you're making the Atlantis legend look more unlikey with every silly post. Carry on.

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 11:01 AM

Ummm, I 'm not an atlantis or pre historic civilization researcher. They're not my theories. But there are scientific theories that it is a true place, and several theories as to where it's location really is or is most likely to be. So the real debate is more about where, rather than if it existed

"And then you say the story is an oral tradition passed down to Plato - but if the story is true then he has just been told this story by Critias."

Not sure what you exactly mean by this. Critias was Plato's maternal great grandfather

ANother page with some stuff on atlantis
http://www.crystalinks.com/atlantistheories.html

However if you are confused as to my opinion, my opinion is that definitely the best candidate is the megaliths and pyramidal structures off of Cuba, and around the Gulf of mexico and Belize. Areas that were above water 9000 years before Plato

It's not so inconceivable the knowledge was lost in Egypt, or any other country that may have at one time known of Atlantis for that matter. A lot more less old records in history have been lost than just atlantis

steenkh

22nd June 2005, 11:18 AM

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
Ummm, I 'm not an atlantis or pre historic civilization researcher. They're not my theories. But there are scientific theories that it is a true place, and several theories as to where it's location really is or is most likely to be.
There are theories, but not scientific ones.
Using science in a silly theory doesn't exactly confer on it the dignity of being a 'scientific theory' in any serious sense.
If I search for fairies with a Geiger counter it doesn't make my theory that fairies exist a "scientific theory".

So the real debate is more about where, rather than if it existed
No it isn't. That is obviously totally incorrect.
No serious scientific archaeologist considers Atlantis to be a real place. Maybe an amusing legend, but no more.
Its location, date, geography history and culture are described in detail. They don't match anything in reality, so anyone who believes in it is indulging in some wishful thinking based on no evidence.

"And then you say the story is an oral tradition passed down to Plato - but if the story is true then he has just been told this story by Critias."

Not sure what you exactly mean by this. Critias was Plato's maternal great grandfather
Are you saying that this story has been constantly handed down through the family? If so then it disagrees with what is written.
If it is just Critias telling Plato it is hardly an "oral tradition" is it. Or is every story told to you by a family member an "oral tradition"

ANother page with some stuff on atlantis
http://www.crystalinks.com/atlantistheories.html

However if you are confused as to my opinion, my opinion is that definitely the best candidate is the magaliths and pyramidal structures off of Cuba, and around the Gulf of mexico. Areas that were above water 9000 years before Plato
Or Cydonia or Narnia.

It's not so inconceivable the knowledge was lost in Egypt, or any other country that may have at one time known of Atlatis for that matter. A lot more less old records in history have been lost than just atlantis [/B][/QUOTE]
It's not just the records have been lost, but an entire massive country, the land it stood on, any records or references from a number of other countries, any artefacts...
Basically you may as well search for Hogwarts. There is more anecdotal evidence for it.

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 11:31 AM

I am not aware whether Plato mention the Pyramids or Sphinx directly. It's posssible it was in the oral history but left out of Plato's unfinished work, or that the story solon heard did not mention the Pyramids

There are theories on Atlantis based on evidence.

Here is a page on theory, hypothesis , and laws
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

So a theory is a hypthesis accepted by many researchers or scientists. But it is not considered to be a law just yet

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/science_method.html

Hogwarts and Atlantis are not the same

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
Hogwarts and Atlantis are not the same
What is the difference, other than the author is still alive?

Okay what about Laputa in Gullivers Travels. What is the difference?

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 11:43 AM

Hogwarts is absolutely not intended to even be based in reality, whereas it is said in the dialogues about Atlantis that there is an element of truth. Hogwarts is not 9000 years old, and was not passed on within a family through generations

THere are no scientific theories or hypothesis that Hogwarts is Crete, in the Atlantic, or anywhere on earth. There are for atlantis. I don't know of any flood myths around the globe which have anything sounding like or resembling Hogwarts

Hogwarts was not written about by one of the most influential and respected writers in history

Plato would often use real characters and places. Harry Potter is not a real character in any sense

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
Hogwarts is absolutely not intended to even be based in reality, whereas it is said in the dialogues about Atlantis that there is an element of truth.
As it does in Gulliver's Travels and at the start of Jurassic Park.
Your point?

Hogwarts is not 9000 years old, and was not passed on within a family through generations
How do you know? Maybe that has been removed or missed out of the text.
It's posssible it was in the oral history but left out of Plato's JK Rowling's finished work

THere are no scientific theories or hypothesis that Hogwarts is Crete, in the Atlantic, or anywhere on earth.
Yes there are, I've read them. They used pictures and numbers and everything.
However if you are confused as to my opinion, my opinion is that definitely the best candidate is the North West of Scotland.

There are for atlantis. I don't know of any flood myths around the globe which have anything sounding like or resembling Hogwarts
So we're using flood myths as evidence now?

Hogwarts was not written about by one of the most influential and respected writers in history
She's outselling Plato by millions of copies.

Plato would often use real characters and places. Harry Potter is not a real character in any sense
Funny I always though 'London' and 'England', and 'Ireland' and 'Bulgaria' and 'China' and 'King's Cross Station' and 'The Prime Minister' were real places and people.
BTW how does your first sentence there relate to the second one?

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 12:20 PM

"If I search for fairies with a Geiger counter it doesn't make my theory that fairies exist a "scientific theory"

If you found good verifiable evidence of fairies, it would

Guliver's travels and Jurassic Park are intended primarily to be pure entertainment. Jurassic park never claims to be true, it was written as a fiction book then the rights were bought to make a movie of it

Neither Hogwarts nor Harry Potter, are based on any other stories. The writer admits that, and probably states that any resemblances to real people are purely coincidental.

Ashles

22nd June 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
"If I search for fairies with a Geiger counter it doesn't make my theory that fairies exist a "scientific theory"

If you found good verifiable evidence of fairies, it would
That's nice.
Not entirely relevant though as no "good verifiable evidence" of Alantis has been found. Ever.

Guliver's travels and Jurassic Park are intended primarily to be pure entertainment. Jurassic park never claims to be true, it was written as a fiction book
So, stories written as entertainment, not meant to be taken literally, but they claim in their text that they are true stories...
Hmm, reminds me of something...

Neither Hogwarts nor Harry Potter, are based on any other stories. The writer admits that, and probably states that any resemblances to real people are purely coincidental.
Well firstly a lot of people disagree that the Hary Potter stories are original and unique.
And secondly that's just standard disclaimer. Alot of things have to add that, even stories involving real people and places.
That's no reason to assume that Hogwarts isn't real.
But it's probably based on an older school of Witchcraft and Wizardry passed down to Rowling through Oral History.

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 01:11 PM

There are researchers and scientists who think there is good evidence Atlantis could be real or "based on a true story", and that certain finds are connected to the story.

From here
http://www.nii.net/~obie/atlantis.htm

"First of all, it is highly doubtful that Plato would have had to invent Atlantis to expound his ideas of an ideal state system, - indeed, he had previously expounded them more than once in his other works, without any geographical hoaxes.

Secondly, in Timaeus itself there already exists - and is actively used by Plato - an object only too suitable for setting forth utopian concepts - the pre-historic Athens, so the supposition that Plato needed to invent specifically for the purpose a second, let alone such an exotic one as Atlantis, seems rather far-fetched."

Correa Neto

22nd June 2005, 01:43 PM

Oh, yes, Atlantis according to such "qualified experts" was located at:

The Andes
The Pacific Ocean
Antarctica
Indian Ocean
Yucatan Peninsula

Funny that none of these places fits with PlatoÂ´s account... Still, woos accept these "theories".

And how many more times must we write that NO GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF A SUNKEN CONTINENT EXISTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. And NO GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENA CAN SINK A CONTINENT OR LARGE ISLAND-CONTINENT IN SUCH A SHORT AMMOUNT OF TIME!!!!

Spektator

22nd June 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
"If I search for fairies with a Geiger counter it doesn't make my theory that fairies exist a "scientific theory"

If you found good verifiable evidence of fairies, it would

Guliver's travels and Jurassic Park are intended primarily to be pure entertainment. Jurassic park never claims to be true, it was written as a fiction book then the rights were bought to make a movie of it

....

Gulliver's Travels does claim to be true, however. The introduction maintains that the truth of the story "is apparent through the whole," and that Lemuel Gulliver was such a truthful man that in his neighborhood it became a proverb "to say, it was as true as if Mr. Gulliver had spoken it." Gulliver himself defends the truth of his account by saying, "I have never yet heard of any Yahoo so presumptuous as to dispute ... the facts I have related concerning [the lands I visited]; because the truth immediately strikes every reader with conviction."

So since this text claims itself to be true and factual, just as Plato's does, why isn't Laputa regarded as just as real as Atlantis?

Kilik

22nd June 2005, 03:19 PM

Here's an article I found which talks about the location and some geological issues a bit
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/CrispDanAtlantis.php?p=1

Spektator

22nd June 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
Here's an article I found which talks about the location and some geological issues a bit
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/CrispDanAtlantis.php?p=1

Except that Dan Crisp, the author, begins by asserting he's going to discuss just what Plato wrote, but almost immediately begins to change things: he chooses to ignore the distinctions between "island," "land," and "whole country" so his candidate makes sense; he assumes a unit of measurement; he waffles by a thousand years on the date given by Plato; and the geology doesn't make much sense, given the mid-Atlantic Rift.

Correa Neto

23rd June 2005, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
Here's an article I found which talks about the location and some geological issues a bit
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/CrispDanAtlantis.php?p=1
Ah, yeah... It makes sense now. I live in Atlantis. I am an Atlantean.

Killik, do you ever really read the links you post?

Even commiting some huge mistakes (there was no increase in seismicity at the end of the last Ice Age; the Mid-Atlantic Range is far from being what he think it is) he points that Atlantis was not in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. And since, as far as I know South America is not submerged, IT DOES NOT FIT WIT PLATOÂ´S DESCRIPTION. Not to mention that there are no records of 10Ky-old civilizations similar to the describe by Plato in South America.

Try reading the article below:
http://skeptic.com/atlantis/atlantis1.html
The text is well-written and quite simple to understand.

But never mind. You blew our cover. I am an Atlantean trying to hide the truth about Atlantis. The whole South America is involved in a conspiracy to hide our real identity.

Kilik

23rd June 2005, 05:03 PM

Atlantis
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i021017/i021017.html

ancient legends
http://www.rexresearch.com/usa/usaproph.htm#us1

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~chatzis/Aztlan.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0528_020528_sunkencities.html

Ashles

23rd June 2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i021017/i021017.html

http://www.rexresearch.com/usa/usaproph.htm#us1

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~chatzis/Aztlan.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0528_020528_sunkencities.html
Have you still not grasped the fact that most people aren't going to read links without any explanation of what they are about, or what point they are making?

Kilik

23rd June 2005, 05:43 PM

Articles with something concerning atlantis or pre historic civilzation legends

Ashles

23rd June 2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Kilik
Articles with something concerning atlantis or pre historic civilzation legends
Thanks, that answers my question.

Although it might have been slightly quicker for you to type 'No'.

Yeah_Right

23rd June 2005, 09:02 PM

Kilik, did you read the Skepitcal Inquirer article?? It's this one here, http://skeptic.com/atlantis/atlantis1.html , just want your impressions of it.

Kilik

23rd June 2005, 09:19 PM

I think enough serious research and thought has gone into atlantis, and throughout different times enough precedents are set in using that name for a pre historic civilization in the past, that the name atlantis should not be discarded as total fiction, or perhaps even just one story; it could be a story comprised of a few different earlier stories even

steenkh

24th June 2005, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Kilik
I think enough serious research and thought has gone into atlantis, and throughout different times enough precedents are set in using that name for a pre historic civilization in the past, that the name atlantis should not be discarded as total fiction, or perhaps even just one story; it could be a story comprised of a few different earlier stories even
Maybe you should read this book: "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology"
by Dr. Kenneth L. Feder. It also deals with the Atlantis myth, and Dr Feder is actually recognised as an expert on Atlantis.

When Disney wanted to make a film of Atlantis they went to Dr. Feder to get the scientific angle, but when they did not get what they wanted to hear (that Atlantis was real and located in the New World) they just wrote the story after their own head.

I also suspect that you would only regard scientific research as "serious" if they found the Atlantis myth to be real. And apparently, the more there is written about Atlantis, the more real it gets?

Actually, it is quite common for stories to be composed out of true scraps and combined with other stories. The problem here is that there is no other source than Plato, and his claim that the story is true, carries as much weight as Gulliver's. Plato's claim that Atlantis was unbelievably old, unbelievably large, and unbelievably advanced, only undermines his credibility. If there had been any other story that looked like any part of it, Atlantis would have gained immensely, but with not a scrap of evidence, it will remain a fantasy.