Manmade Megaliths under the Pacific ocean- borderline of Mu

[Kilik]

Here's a really good article on it-
http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/articles/2003/6/30/1678.html
http://www.pureinsight.org/pi_images/2003-6-29-japancharacters.jpg

Vidoes about the Yonaguni Megalith
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0016.wvx

this next one's pretty cool-
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0016_1.wvx

Here's a short video showing the similarities between Sout American sites and teh Yonaguni site
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0022.ram

The islands out in the Pacific could be the outskirts of where some people think the land of Lemuria or Mu once was. Some have also noted that many ancient monuments strangely seem to be built for very large people. I haven't found a whole lot of info on the net about Mu or Lemuria but here are a couple sites so far-
http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/Other/Lemuria/evidence_of_lemuria.htm
http://www.brotherhoodoflife.com/MU.html

I saw on TV that some scientists are saying it could not have been right in the very middle of the pacific, but some ancient accounts about it's location do actually conform to scientific ideas about earth plates etc. It wasn't in the very middle of the ocean but off to one side probably. Possibly along what geologists now call the "superswell" area in the Pacific. Some people also say Mu was even older than Atlantis.
http://www.lightnet.co.uk/informer/civilisations/japan.htm



There are other legends which connect to it, such as the Indian legend of Lumania. They may have constructed the moon itsel
http://www.nii.net/~obie/historygold.htm


All the researchers I have read about or seen on TV who examined it, stated that it is definite that at least parts of it are manmade. And it's massive

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni_schoch1.html
http://www.morien-institute.org/imk12.html#mizostairs
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/japan/japan.html
http://www.toriitraining.com/yonaguni.htm
http://www.morien-institute.org/interview1_MK.html

http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm

http://www.toriitraining.com/mainter.jpg
http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/japan/images/Japan02.gif
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/yh_010.jpg

http://www.bihou.com/iseki/mein/97_mein_015.jpg


http://www.morien-institute.org/images/mizo_stairs2.jpg

Big enough to swim through
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/joumon1a.jpg

http://www.morien-institute.org/images/Yonaguni2.jpg

http://www.morien-institute.org/images/Yonaguni4.jpg

"It was obviously made, and used, in the distant past when the area was last above sea-level, "

Carved giant turtle image
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-16.jpg

[Kilik]

http://www.morien-institute.org/images/kame_turtle1.jpg

Sphinx type carving?
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/goddess_rock2.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-17.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-10.jpg

http://www.morien-institute.org/images/sutajiamu_001.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-15.jpg

http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/japan/images/Japan06.jpg

" Around Yonaguni-jima there are a large number of stones, both above and below sea-level, which show clear evidence of 'wedge-marks' having been cut into the surfaces ready for splitting. Near the 'Tategami-iwa', there is a square-shaped megalith measuring more than 30 feet, and this is called 'Sekihi-iwa'."

http://www.morien-institute.org/images/uw_toolmarks3.jpg

http://www.toriitraining.com/1427-12bw.jpg

similar to some above water sites
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-2.jpg

[Kilik]

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan2.html

http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni2.htm

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/2-2.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/2-4.jpg

Facing east, and the rising sun
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/2-5.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/2-6.jpg

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/2-7.jpg

The main Ziguart at the Yonaguni site was discovered in 1986, but is wasn't studied so much at first because many people weren't really sure if it was man made or what it was. However, some of the things like the Giant head and stadium are much more recent finds. They are still finding new things around that general vicinity of the ocean

http://www.morien-institute.org/imk5.html
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/stonetab1.jpg

http://www.morien-institute.org/imk9.html
" The images below are of the mysterious 'gusuku cave' that extends inward, and slopes downward, under the gusuku structure. The two images showing the entrance are taken from the outside of the cave looking towards the semi-circular wall feature (left), and (right) from the inside of the cave looking out. It is clear for everyone to see that the 'entrance' has been 'artificially shaped', and this is not something that it is possible to imagine anyone would undertake to do to an 'underwater' cave ..."
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/uw_gusuku_cave3.jpg

"It was obviously made, and used, in the distant past when the area was last above sea-level, and currently the cave is blocked by an enormous accumulation of soil and sand to a depth of approximately 50 feet ..."
http://www.morien-institute.org/images/uw_gusuku_cave4.jpg

[m0nngis]

I can post pictures too!

http://www.pbs.org/buenavista/gallery/images/bw_8.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/OM3G413/ttggff.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/28/54253838_36f1e118ce_m.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/jdunmanhere/dad.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/brittanysimp/doll_brit.jpg
http://www.artshack.com/iggy/iggwalk.jpg
http://www.readysetdie.com/images/blackrazr.jpg
http://parasol9pt.net/various/livejournal/2005_08/2005-08-15_yu.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/ysabol_ladyhawke/ae987150.jpg

[catbasket]

http://www.artshack.com/iggy/iggwalk.jpg

Iggy!

[m0nngis]

Iggy!Indeed it is!

[emperorchaos]

I saw the program from which these pictures (or at least similar ones) were taken on the National Geographic channel (might give it away right there) and the "scientists" investigating these so-called monoliths gave very little information about them. They mostly just showed pictures and allowed for the viewer to make his case for them.

At any rate, is it not possible for these to be man-made structures that later sunk into the ocean? They are right off the coast of a chain of islands created by volcanos so why isn't it plausible that they could have simply sunk during an eruption that was never recorded. And they were only discovered 20 years ago. Why do people insist on jumping to conclusions? "It's Mu! The other lost continent! Woo!!"


Anyway, I joined this forum a few days ago, and here is my first post. Hello everyone!

[Dragon]

Welcome to the forum emperorchaos!
FYI the reason other posters are taking Kilik less than seriously is that he makes a habit of starting threads in this fashion - with loads of links and perhaps some pretty pictures. What he finds trouble with is making a clear point and debating it - when others try to engage him he usually just posts more links which he's Googled up. He has been accused of not even reading the links he posts.
You make a couple of good points - just don't expect Kilik to address them.

[Zep]

Hey Killik - many of these have been shown to be natural geological features. Nothing amazing about them beyond their geological structure. As for the "Lost Continent of Mu", I'd suggest you review your future spending on hallucinogens - you have already run up quite a bill there!

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

JREF Memebers...and your point is?

Kilik - wibble wibble, hatstand, fish, ftang! *posts more random links*

[Kilik]

There is a major missing link in history, that modern scholors such as graham hancock have pointed out, a missing prehistoric civilization that is the source of the knowledge and culture of many supposedly independantly develoloped cultures. This is obviously the very bordeline, beginning of Mu

[MRC_Hans]

Obviously? Why is that obvious? Even assuming these structures are man-made (which is only one of several possible explanations), why assume they are from some mystical civilization? We know of a number of man-made structires that are submerged, for various reasons.

Hans

[Odin]

I would suggest that pictures are required for me to make a point.

http://www.ljplus.ru/img/l/i/lisjatina/avstr.jpg


Very similar to the above:
http://relax.photofile.ru/cphoto/04a/107/1008191/large/13477520754357723b8d6ec.jpg

For some reason it always generates a discworld based picture:
http://images.quizfarm.com/1128292362Granny.jpg

further evidence of sunken ruins:
http://www.algarve-info.com/images/travel/vilamoura7.jpg

Pyramid like structure:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/la_sonnambula/Sept19cubinbin1.jpg

[Roadtoad]

Haven't checked the links yet, and I'm not sure I ought to at this time. Still, the question remains: Has anyone bothered to check the geology of the area? If there are slip type faults in the area, that might explain why some man made structures are now underwater. (Some. A lot of what you've shown can - and has - resulted from volcanic activity.)

But being a "lost continent," the land of Mu? That is one hell of a leap. Sorry, no sale.

[Kilik]

A huge amount of land around there was lost at the end of the ice age. Land that would have been much more inhabitble at that time than much of the land that is now inhabited today was back then. I think enough to be a continent

[Ed]

There is a major missing link in history, that modern scholors such as graham hancock have pointed out, a missing prehistoric civilization that is the source of the knowledge and culture of many supposedly independantly develoloped cultures. This is obviously the very bordeline, beginning of Mu

What knowledge, specifically? Don't give me a link, just lay the problem out as you see it. One paragraph will so.

[Belz...]

There is a major missing link in history, that modern scholors such as graham hancock have pointed out, a missing prehistoric civilization that is the source of the knowledge and culture of many supposedly independantly develoloped cultures.

Really ? How so ?

This is obviously the very bordeline, beginning of Mu

Obviously ? How so?

[Kilik]

Humans are said to be 200,000 years old.

There isn't much known on civilizations past 12,000 years ago.

What about the other 188,00 years?

That is also the end of the Ice Age. Also the date given by Plato.It correlates well with many traditions which speak of a Great Flood.

Many cultures that are supposed to be unrelated and completely independant, are related.

[Correa Neto]

There's no chance that the sunken continents of Atlantis and Mu ever existed. The crust at Pacific and Atlantic oceans is typicall oceanic crust - composed manly by basalts. Continental crust is composed by granitic and granodioritic rocks.

No, there's nothing big as continent that could be hiding there. The surveys are detailed enough to allow any geo to say this.

And there were no tsunami-like flooding linked with the end of the Ice Ages. Sea leves rose slowly enough foe even snails escape. All this is quite well documented in the geological record.

All the claims on Mu and Atlantis, as presented by Killik's linkspam are woo nonsense. They are shattered after a minimal research of the availiable geological data. But some people just resfuse to do so.

[Kilik]

ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET KEY TO SUDDEN SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE PAST
http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2002/200203288330.html
"This event happened near the end of the last Ice Age, a period of de-glaciation that lasted from about 21,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago," Clark said. "The average sea level rise during that period was about eight millimeters per year. But during this meltwater pulse there was an extremely rapid disintegration of an ice sheet and sea levels rose much faster than average."

The amount of sea level rise that occurred during a single year of that period, Clark said, is more than the total sea level rise that has occurred in the past 100 years.

So there were 3 major "pulses", during the ice age where sea levels rose quite rapidly at the end of the ice age. The reality is that sea levels rose quite rapidly.

10 million square miles at least, were lost to the sea, into the Underworld, at the end of the last ice age. More area than North America and Australia combined. A large area was off Japan and above Australia

[Odin]

Humans are said to be 200,000 years old.

There isn't much known on civilizations past 12,000 years ago.

What about the other 188,00 years?

What makes you think humans actually formed civilisations past 12,000 years ago?

[Correa Neto]

How much faster, Killik? And how many meters, Killik?

Enough to submerge a continent in one day? Of course not. This IS what the reality is and its NOT as stated in Hancocks' baseless speculations or Cayce's prophecies.

Not to mention that how much land was covered by the trangression is a function of shoreline gradient. Small gradients equal to wider areas covered by the sea. Japan is an isand arc. Its shorelines and shelves are quite steep, thus the covered area was small. Once again, the answer is a plain and simple no.

Stop the data cherry picking.

[Kilik]

those would have also been the areas with the best climate for inhabtation before the end of the ice age

[Correa Neto]

Baseless claim, again.

Ever considered that elevated positions are good for defensive purposes? That inland areas are needed for farming and mining? And that these supposed civilizations seem to have not left any remains inland?

And that there was no fast flood at the end of the ice ages?
And that there is no evidence for continental crust at the bottom of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans?

[Kilik]

"Atlantic Shelf
Strange, Straight Tracks At 1 Mile Depth

At a depth of 2000 metres, along the seabed that marks the peak of the ridge on the seamount north of the Azores, the researchers also discovered a puzzling set of straight tracks, resembling burrows roughly 5 cm apart. They confess to having no idea how and by what the tracks were made.

The MAR-ECO study is one component of Census of Marine Life (CoML), a 10-year, $1billion programme of exploration in the Atlantic. More than 110 scientists from 16 different nations are involved in this collaborative effort...."
http://www.s8int.com/images/shelfprints.jpg

And the Underworld-
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/

[Alphaba]

Relevant analysis:
Kilik: Here is a pile of links. Isn't Edgar Cayce amazing?
Everyone: Those links are nonsense rubbish because [XXX]
Kilik: Well that doesn't matter because here is a load of different links
Everyone: But those are also rubbish because [XXX]
Kilik: Here is a new really long list of links
Everyone: Why don't you actually discuss any of these things yourself?
Kilik: Don't ask questions. Here are many more links
Everyone: This is also all rubbish - but we are losing the incentive to explain why
Kilik: Here are more links. They may not all be correct and may disagree with other links I have posted but that doesn't matter because pretending there were advanced civilisations hundreds of thousands of years ago is exciting for me.
Everyone: You don't even understand any of this do you?
Kilik: Don't ask questions. Here. More links. Isn't there anything there that might be real? Surely somewhere?
Everyone: No
Kilik: But I researched them. I typed 'Pyramids' into Google and linked to everything it came up with.So it must all be true. Look there's a rock that looks like a step.
Everyone: You don't even care that all this has been debunked over and over do you?
Kilik: Look, more links. Some of them are the same as I have previously posted but that doesn't matter.
Everyone: Can't you even try to make one single point and attempt to defend it?
Kilik: Shut up! More links! Look! Accept! Don't question!
Everyone: This is all stupid and doesn't stand up to even light investigation
Kilik: Ah but it does. You don't understand because of your 'programming'
Everyone: Dude, if anyone around here needs rebooting and a serious defrag, it's you.

[Luke T.]

Oh, for chrissakes, Kilik. Get your own godammed material! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43722)

For those who don't understand, scroll down the linked topic to my posts.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.taucher.net/photos/photo796/10_Car_Wreck.jpg

[Correa Neto]

Can you prove those holes were dug by Atlanteans or Lemurians?

And I find quite funny that tou say its a straight track but I can see a clear smooth curve...

Better luck next time.

[Dragon]

oops

[LTC8K6]

What, no comment on my car shaped underwater rock photo?

[Luke T.]

What, no comment on my car shaped underwater rock photo?

That is a totally natural formation created over millions of years. There are such formations at the bottom of many a lake, pond, rock quarry, and bay.

[Zep]

A pre-Ice-Age car! Under water, what's more! What more proof do you need, Kilik...

...that you're a twat.

[Kilik]

Maybe then, you could call Lemuria an ice age island

[Cleon]

Maybe then, you could call Lemuria an ice age island

Sure you could, providing there was evidence of Lemuria's existence, much less its existence during that particular ice age. Since there isn't much in the way of said evidence, I suppose you could still say that, but not seriously.

[Kilik]

The megalithic monuments at Yonaguni are obviously the edge of that island and continent

[Cleon]

The megalithic monuments at Yonaguni are obviously the edge of that island and continent
Your use of the word "obviously" is noted; however, it is not a substitute for actual evidence.

[Nyarlathotep]

Haven't checked the links yet, and I'm not sure I ought to at this time. Still, the question remains: Has anyone bothered to check the geology of the area? If there are slip type faults in the area, that might explain why some man made structures are now underwater. (Some. A lot of what you've shown can - and has - resulted from volcanic activity.)

But being a "lost continent," the land of Mu? That is one hell of a leap. Sorry, no sale.

Actually, the Geology of the area is the key. They showed something on this on the History Channel a couple of years back, they showed how the local rock fractures at weird right angles. Neat looking, but nothing more than an interesting natural phenomenon. Definately not proof of some ancient civilization.

[Kilik]

everything I saw on the History channel about it, said it is definitely man-made, and man influenced. Dr. Kimura's assessment they said is definitive and autharitative.

[LTC8K6]

everything I saw on the History channel about it, said it is definitely man-made, and man influenced. Dr. Kimura's assessment they said is definitive and autharitative.

Both of which mean very little, Kilik.

[Nyarlathotep]

everything I saw on the History channel about it, said it is definitely man-made, and man influenced. Dr. Kimura's assessment they said is definitive and autharitative.

Either

a) you saw a different show on it than I did.

b) You saw the same show but only focused on the 'pro-yamaguni is a man made structure' arguments.

I am going to hazard a guess and say 'B' is most likely.

The show I saw presented both sides. However when the geologist showed local rock naturally fracturing just like in the 'megaliths' that pretty much sealed the deal for me. Not to mention the model they showed of the largest one. If that WAS a manmade structure then the arrangement of stairs and such would make the Winchester Mystery House look sane by comparison.

[Cleon]

everything I saw on the History channel about it, said it is definitely man-made, and man influenced. Dr. Kimura's assessment they said is definitive and autharitative.

Oh, WELL, if they said it on the Discovery Channel, it MUST be true... :rolleyes:

[Kilik]

The show I saw was on the History channel about the Yonaguni megalith, the show was called somethig like "The Lost motherland of Mu".

It focused a lot on Dr. Kimura, It said he was the foremost authority in his county in the areas of history and geology, and that he had studied the megaliths more than anyone else. He stated it is definitely not just natural. The history channel said his assessment is definitive and authoritative. It also talked about ancient stories about a land called Mu, though I 'm not sure that Dr. Kimura called it Mu

[Cleon]

The show I saw was on the History channel about the Yonaguni megalith, the show was called somethig like "The Lost motherland of Mu".

It focused a lot on Dr. Kimura, It said he was the foremost authority in his county in the areas of history and geology, and that he had studied the megaliths more than anyone else. He stated it is definitely not just natural. The history channel said his assessment is definitive and authoritative. It also talked about ancient stories about a land called Mu, though I 'm not sure that Dr. Kimura called it Mu

So now it's the History channel that has declared this to be gospel. Well, ok then. :rolleyes:

[LTC8K6]

It is called Japan's Mysterious Pyramids and it's for sale now.

There are several shows on yonaguni, actually. Most of them overhyped.

[Nyarlathotep]

The show I saw was on the History channel about the Yonaguni megalith, the show was called somethig like "The Lost motherland of Mu".

It focused a lot on Dr. Kimura, It said he was the foremost authority in his county in the areas of history and geology, and that he had studied the megaliths more than anyone else. He stated it is definitely not just natural. The history channel said his assessment is definitive and authoritative. It also talked about ancient stories about a land called Mu, though I 'm not sure that Dr. Kimura called it Mu

Different show then. Regardless of what the History Channel said of his qualifications you can't get around several facts.

1)The local rock fractures in such a way as to produce similar structures naturally

2)They have found no tool marks or other evidence to provide evidence that the structures were NOT the work of natural forces.

3) Occams razor suggests that if the structures can occur natuarally and their is no evidence to conclude that they didn't, then the most logical conclusion is that they are NOT man made

4) Dr. Kimura, smart as he may be, is a geologist, not an archeologist and thus not the most qualified person to determine whether a tructure is man made or not. He did, however, lose all credibility with me when he showed a vaguely ovoid rock and procalimed it a statue of a turtle. It looked like a rock, nothing turtle like about it beyound being vaguely the same shape

Edited to fix a badly placed sentence.

[Kilik]

The giant Turtle signified a gate and entrance and is astrologically aligned too, it is even similar to how gates are marked in above water okinawan buildings and sites

[Cleon]

The giant Turtle

No evidence of any turtle.


signified a gate


No evidence that it signified squat.


and entrance and is astrologically aligned too,


No evidence of astrology. (You are aware that the stars have changed over the past 10,000 years? That "astrologically aligned" doesn't mean squat?)


it is even similar to how gates are marked in above water okinawan buildings and sites

Really? How many Okinawan cities are marked with a big honkin' turtle?

[Kilik]

Some modern buildings, and ones at least more modern than 10,000 years are marked with a turtle facing a certain direction. Some are also maked with a dragon in the same way

[LTC8K6]

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02sab/logs/jul29/media/closeup_600.jpg


A turkey wing mussel (Genus Arca) is found living within a bored hole, firmly attached to the rocky substrate.

[Cleon]

Some modern buildings, and ones at least more modern than 10,000 years are marked with a turtle facing a certain direction. Some are also maked with a dragon in the same way

And which buildings might those be?

[Kilik]

I'll have to look into it more for the exact names of the sites, but it was on the show ...

[Cleon]

I'll have to look into it more for the exact names of the sites, but it was on the show ...

Again a reference to this wonderful show.

You know...Has it occurred to you that the show might not be the Way, the Truth, and the Light? A lot of times these shows only present one side of the story.

[Nyarlathotep]

The giant Turtle signified a gate and entrance and is astrologically aligned too, it is even similar to how gates are marked in above water okinawan buildings and sites


As Cleon said, you have to show that it IS a turtle before any of the rest of it means squat. Being vaguely ovoid does not qualify it as a turtle statue. I could probably go out in my back yard and find 10 rocks that resemble a turtle as much as that one does. Does that mean an ancient civilization littered my back yard with tiny turtle statues?

[Kilik]

mmmmm..I doubt you'd find a turtle like at Yonaguni...

Even though it is man-made, of course there are going to be natural forces effecting it as well

[Cleon]

mmmmm..I doubt you'd find a turtle like at Yonaguni...

Assuming it's actually a turtle, which you have yet to establish.


Even though it is man-made,

Which you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for.

[Nyarlathotep]

mmmmm..I doubt you'd find a turtle like at Yonaguni...

Even though it is man-made, of course there are going to be natural forces effecting it as well

Not as large, admittedly, but shaped roughly the same. And with just as much evidence that it was carved into shape by human hands, i.e. none. So what's the difference? Is there evidence of an ancient civilization in my back yard?

Of course if there is evidence that the 'turtle' is other than just a big oval rock, please present it.

[LTC8K6]

Some are also maked with a dragon in the same way

Ah ha! I knew the dragon statues would get you!

:bowl:

[Kilik]

When taken with the rest of the finds at the site, considering it's placement as a gate, and the expert evalution geologically and archaeologically, it seems the only answer is that it is manmade to indicate an entrance and gate

[Cleon]

When taken with the rest of the finds at the site, considering it's placement as a gate,

No, your claim that its placement is as a gate. See, there's a difference.


and the expert evalution


No appeal to authority here. :rolleyes:


geologically and archaeologically,


My understanding is this guy isn't an archaeologist at all, actually.


it seems the only answer is that it is manmade to indicate an entrance and gate

No, it's the only answer you want to reach. See, there's a difference.

[Nyarlathotep]

When taken with the rest of the finds at the site, considering it's placement as a gate, and the expert evalution geologically and archaeologically, it seems the only answer is that it is manmade to indicate an entrance and gate


Except the placement and alignment mean squat unless you establish that it is man made. As for the 'Expert evaluation', one crackpot scientist who is outside of his field <> 'expert evaluation'. Not by a long shot. And so far, his analysis hasn't stood up to scrutiny from others, especially by scientists who ARE archeologists.

[Kilik]

I don't think Dr. Kimura can be called a "crackpot", I'm not sure he isn't an archaeologist either, or a geo-archaeologist.

Think of the Sphinx's dating. The archaeologists got that one wrong
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx1.html
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Giza/

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think Dr. Kimura can be called a "crackpot", I'm not sure he isn't an archaeologist either, or a geo-archaeologist.

Think of the Sphinx's dating. The archaeologists got that one wrong
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx1.html
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Giza/

Kimura is a professor in the "Physics and Earth Studies" department,according to the Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20000719b4.htm). And everything else I have read has labeled him a Geologist too. He is out of his field. Your argument rests on Dr. Kimura's analysis and you don't know his qualifications?

By co-inky-dink the same article mentions the same geologist mentioned in your Sphinx article saying Kimura is wrong. And as for archaeologists getting the Sphinx's date wrong, that doesn't mean they are wrong about Yonaguni. And again, it is only ONE team of scientists saying the date on the Sphinx is wrong, the consensus of most scientists is that the dating of the Sphinx is correct. Again you choose the conclusion that suits you and ignore the rest.

[Kilik]

I don't know what "suits me" exactly means, but of course I go by who's findings agree with my findings.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Kimura is supposed to also be an expert in history and archaology as well as geology. And he has studied the Yonaguni monument in more depth than anyone else

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't know what "suits me" exactly means, but of course I go by who's findings agree with my findings.

There is a word for when you cherry pick the data that fits the conclusion you want and ignore the rest. That word is pseudo-science.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Kimura is supposed to also be an expert in history and archaology as well as geology. And he has studied the Yonaguni monument in more depth than anyone else

Pretty sure? As I said before, you are resting your whole argument on Dr. Kimura's analysis and you don't know? Pretty sure is the best you can come up with? I have seen nothing to suggest him as an expert in any field other than geology.And people who ARE experts in archeology have rejected his findings.

[Kilik]

Independant people finding similar conclusions is not cherry-picking.

[Cleon]

I don't know what "suits me" exactly means, but of course I go by who's findings agree with my findings.

Right. You don't go by the evidence, you go by who you want to be correct. As Nyarlahotep said, that's pseudo-science to a tee.

[Kilik]

There's not a whole lot of want involved, as far as these issues go, as far as finding similarities between supposedly unrelated things, I just find it interesting

[Nyarlathotep]

Independant people finding similar conclusions is not cherry-picking.

It certainly is when you ignore all evidence that doesn't say what you want it to say.

[Cleon]

There's not a whole lot of want involved,

Given the amount of evidence you've presented, there's nothing but want involved.

[Kilik]

I have to reject what doesn't make sense and doesn't conform to what is known to be true

[Zep]

Oh. Then you will be rejecting this whole pile of possum's poo you have just posted here?

[Kilik]

There was a lost civilization that is now under the Pacific ocean. Most commonly is is referred to as Lumuria, Mu, or Lumania

The monument at Yonaguni is manmade.

[Nyarlathotep]

I have to reject what doesn't make sense and doesn't conform to what is known to be true


Too bad for you science doesn't work that way. If science is properly done, and the results fail to conform to "what makes sense" to you or "What you know to be true" then you re-examine your assumptions, you don't throw out the evidence.

[Cleon]

There was a lost civilization that is now under the Pacific ocean. Most commonly is is referred to as Lumuria, Mu, or Lumania

The monument at Yonaguni is manmade.


That may well be, but the evidence you've presented to that effect hovers between "Jack" and "Squat," and Jack looks like he's getting bored.

[Kilik]

Usually the results are ignored if they don't conform to science's preconceived notions. For example, human teeth at a cave in Malta from 10,000 years ago are pushed aside and ignored, because this inconvinient fact didn't conform to the orthodox understandings of Malta's past

[Nyarlathotep]

There was a lost civilization that is now under the Pacific ocean. Most commonly is is referred to as Lumuria, Mu, or Lumania

The monument at Yonaguni is manmade.

Evidence?

For either statement?

[Cleon]

Usually the results are ignored if they don't conform to science's preconceived notions.

If by "ignored" you mean "carefully scrutinized and dismissed if they're the result of wishful thinking, fabrication, or both" then yes, you're correct.

Because, see, mainstream science got to be where it's at for a reason. That reason is called "examining the evidence and following where it leads." And if something comes out of left field to challenge all the mountains of evidence and investigations leading scientists to the conclusions that they have, it better be pretty %^&*ing overwhelming.

So far what you've presented....Isn't.


For example, human teeth at a cave in Malta from 10,000 years ago are pushed aside and ignored, because this inconvinient fact didn't conform to the orthodox understandings of Malta's past

I know better than to ask what the hell you're talking about. It'll just lead to more bizarro platitudes and zero actual evidence.

[Nyarlathotep]

Usually the results are ignored if they don't conform to science's preconceived notions. For example, human teeth at a cave in Malta from 10,000 years ago are pushed aside and ignored, because this inconvinient fact didn't conform to the orthodox understandings of Malta's past


No idea what you are you are going on about with that statement. But I will reiterate? Evidence? And if so, how do you know they are pushed aside because they don't 'conform to the orthodox understandings of Malta's past' as opposed to being dismissed because it cannot conclusively be established that they ARE human teeth, or any of a myriad of other reasons.

Science is a field where you get ahead by proving the status quo wrong, not by blindly conforming to it, but you have to have good evidence. A scientist who had proof that people lived on Malta much earlier than we currently think they did would be lauded, so why would he push aside the evidence if the evidence was that strong?

[Kilik]

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
Dr Schoch has made it clear that he feels the structure was primarily a natural structure that people in ancient times had carved out of the 'living bedrock' and enhanced to suit their purposes. His actual comments in 1999 were:

"We should also consider the possibility that the Yonaguni Monument is fundamentally a natural structure that was utilized, enhanced, and modified by humans in ancient times."

This type of activity seems to have been widely used in ancient times all over the archaic world, and has become known as 'terra-forming' - nature suggests a shape, and human hands go to work to modify it as they want or need it to look. This could have been done for ritual purposes, or for purely practical ones. No-one can yet say for sure ...

According to the report of the 2001 conference in Japan, there have been a number of discoveries recently that add a great deal of weight to the theory that the structure was certainly 'terra-formed' at least by ancient people:

"Japanese scientists have documented marks on the stones that indicate that they were hewn. Not only that, the tools used in this process have been found in the area, and carvings have been discovered. A small stairway carved into the rocks appears to render the theory that this is a natural formation implausible.

The problem with all of this for western scientists is that it implies that an unknown eastern culture had developed a high degree of organization thousands of years before the earliest western civilizations. Geologically, the Yonaguni pyramid sank into the ocean at the end of the last ice age, around ten thousand years ago. Some western geologists have theorized that, if it is manmade, it must have risen from the sea in more recent times, and been carved then.

However, the discovery of other, similar structures beneath the sea of Japan was also announced at the conference. If these prove to be similar to the Yonaguni pyramid they may rewrite the history of early man."

[Nyarlathotep]

Nice, now show me something from a peer reviewed publication or other place where real archeological work is discussed by real archeologists coming to the conclusion that there are tool marks. Some guy's woo-woo website is a poor substitute for an archeological journal.

[Cleon]

Schoch is a geologist, not an archaeologist. There is no reason to believe he'd be able to recognize signs of human habitation.

In any event, it seems your own quote works against you. Even if Schoch's correct, this means that the megalithic formation is natural, and not the work of some ancient technologically advanced civilization. I note they tapdance around that in the article, but it remains the case.

I just looked him up. Turns out that not only is he not an archaeologist by any means, he's also a flaming loon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schoch)

[Zep]

Kilik is proving to be a slightly more literate version of Kumar. I wonder if they give out degrees now in Googlodementia (the practice of incessant Googling without bothering to comprehend the results).

[Kilik]

I think the Geology can sometimes be considered "harder proof" than dating a site due to a single peice of pottery found that happened to be from an ancient time, like archaeologists.

A Geologist would know if somethig is not naturally formed. If it's not natural, it's man made.

Graham Hancock said many hundreds of geologists support and agree with Schoch. Whole American geological organizations support his findings

[Cleon]

I think the Geology can sometimes be considered "harder proof" than dating a site due to a single peice of pottery found that happened to be from an ancient time, like archaeologists.
And from this I see that you know very, very little about archaeology. All other things aside, you should take an Archaeology 101 course when you get to college. It's really fascinating.


A Geologist would know if somethig is not naturally formed.
No, not necessarily. If I handed a geologist a worked piece of stone, he wouldn't necessarily be able to tell me that it was worked unless it was manifestly obvious (i.e., arrowhead). If I led him to a cliff, he'd be able to give me a pretty good description of how the cliff was formed and how the rock came about, but he wouldn't be able to explain every nick, cranny, crack, bump, and ledge. That's not his job.


Graham Hancock said many hundreds of geologists support and agree with Schoch. Whole American geological organizations support his findings


Oh, well if Graham Hancock says so... :rolleyes:

Tell me...Which geological organizations might those be?

[Nyarlathotep]

I think the Geology can sometimes be considered "harder proof" than dating a site due to a single peice of pottery found that happened to be from an ancient time, like archaeologists.

A Geologist would know if somethig is not naturally formed. If it's not natural, it's man made.

Graham Hancock said many hundreds of geologists support and agree with Schoch. Whole American geological organizations support his findings

Okay, in your own words, Kilik, in your own words how might the dating of a site by a geologist yeild more accurate results than dating the same site by an archeologist, how would he even go about it? How would a geologist be better equipped to tell a mad made structure from a natural one? I don't just want your assertion that it's so, tell me HOW it is so.

And, by the by, this is not a matter of 'dating' the site anyway. It's a matter of whether the site is a man made structure or plain old rocks.

[Roadtoad]

You know, Clive Cussler, in his book, Atlantis Found used some information that made for pretty interesting reading, but even Cussler noted that it was FICTION.

I've read several books about Atlantis, or whatever you should choose to call it, but the reality is that it was a MYTH, much like Sir Thomas More's Utopia, (which, when you translate it, means "nowhere.")

Come to think of it, that sort of fits. From what I've read today, Kilik, that looks like where your arguments are headed.

[Kilik]

Graham Hancock said the Geological congress of America in Heaven's Mirror.

Dr. Schoch said most geologists would see it as pretty self-evident or obvious that the Sphinx is quite a lot older than the conventional dating thought, once they see the data, evidence, or examined it themselves

I think sometimes there are fields where people combine fields like a Geo-archaeologist

[emperorchaos]

Graham Hancock said the Geological congress of America in Heaven's Mirror.

Dr. Schoch said most geologists would see it as pretty self-evident or obvious that the Sphinx is quite a lot older than the conventional dating thought, once they see the data, evidence, or examined it themselves

I think sometimes there are fields where people combine fields like a Geo-archaeologist

I have a couple of responses to you. Choose the one that suits you best like you seem to do everything else.

1) I think you are Graham Hancock, so how about getting a real livelihood rather than perpetuating crap like Yoniguni as being evidence of a lost civilization.

2) You've made a believer out of me. All those pretty pictures. Now that we've established the TRUTH about these ancient civilizations using photography (the only true science!) let's get together and discuss the atrocity that must have wiped them out.

3) I've known about these civilizations all along. You see, I am a direct descendant of the populace of these ancient cultures. And we were around for a lot longer than you think by about a billion years, give or take a few hundred million. We wanted to fool future humans (whom we, in our immense intellect, would know to evolve) so we organized this great conspiracy to make things that would look like man-made structures to form over millions and millions of years.
But you, in your interest of finding the truth through Google, have stumbled upon us. We will be visiting you. Shortly. Go wait outside... far far far from the computer.

[Kilik]

yes, but I can't post too many different threads at once on the same day

[Kopji]

Site linked also has the standard opinions that it is manmade, but also includes a geologic map of the island and some photos of natural formations on the surface. Most of the text is in Kanji, but the photos often speak for themselves and make an argument that the formations are natural, or could have been slightly modified by migratory peoples without needing to resort to claims of lost continents or technology.

This is a claim I would apply Occam's Razor to: Really Interesting Stuff, but without more evidence it would be hard to justify a claim of a lost civilization.

The geology map: (The island is made up of this kind of stuff)
http://www.gainendesign.com/taizan/sakishima/island/yonaguni924.jpg


http://www.gainendesign.com/taizan/sakishima/island/island.html

Based on a resarch by Mr. Sakai at Kagoshima-Univ and Mr. Yazaki at Geological survey bureau.
Comment by Prof. Teruaki Ishii at Tokyo-Univ.
Surrounding of Mt. Urabu and south-east seashore area have the kind of geological features, so callled "Yaeyama-Gunso"(Yaeyama Layer) made up of "Shale" and "Sandstone".
Arakawa-bana layer composed of Yaeyama-layer spreads from Arakawa-bana cape, just below which The Structure Is there (see my illustration here), to Sanninu-Terace.
However says Prof. Ishii that the composition of The Structure itself is a little different from those rocks of Arakawa-bana layer, and is "Silt".

[LTC8K6]

Geological congress of America

What is that, Kilik?

[Nyarlathotep]

Graham Hancock said the Geological congress of America in Heaven's Mirror.

Dr. Schoch said most geologists would see it as pretty self-evident or obvious that the Sphinx is quite a lot older than the conventional dating thought, once they see the data, evidence, or examined it themselves

I think sometimes there are fields where people combine fields like a Geo-archaeologist


I'll take that to mean "No, I can't explain how a geologist would be better at telling if a structure is man made than an Archeologist"

ANd as for Dr. Scoch's comment, I thinkit would be better for "most geologist's" to speak for themselves, rather than what Dr. Schoch says they would say.

[Cleon]

Graham Hancock said the Geological congress of America in Heaven's Mirror.

Odd how "Geological Congress of America" doesn't return squat in Google.


Dr. Schoch said most geologists would see it as pretty self-evident or obvious that the Sphinx is quite a lot older than the conventional dating thought, once they see the data, evidence, or examined it themselves


Odd how it's always "Dr. Schoch said," and not what other geologists say.


I think sometimes there are fields where people combine fields like a Geo-archaeologist

Well, that's great, and a lovely backpedal I must say.

However, it doesn't change the fact that a geologist without training in archaeology is...A geologist. Not an archaeologist.

[Nyarlathotep]

You know, Clive Cussler, in his book, Atlantis Found used some information that made for pretty interesting reading, but even Cussler noted that it was FICTION.



Hey! That's my favorite Clive Cussler novel. Kind of a derail here but I find he uses a lot of woo archeology, woo history and sometime woo science to make the plotlines of his books. I wonder if Mr. Cussler actually beleives in that sort of stuff or just finds it to be fertile ground for plots for his particular brand of fiction.

[Kilik]

I don't think Dr. Kimura can be considered a quack. He consults many expets in many fields, and brings in many researchers to come study the site.

[Cleon]

I don't think Dr. Kimura can be considered a quack. He consults many expets in many fields, and brings in many researchers to come study the site.

And yet, so far, we only have two names. Kimura, who seems fairly obscure, and Schoch, who runs a bit at the mouth but is rather out of his field.

Actual evidence you've provided...Zero.

[Kilik]

He's the foremost geologist and I think historian in his country. He consults with the highest experts in many fields.

I don't think he necessarily attributes anything to being Mu though, as it's not considered to be "history" within the modern scientific paradigm.

[Cleon]

He's the foremost geologist and I think historian in his country.

So you say. The fact that he says what you want to hear doesn't make him the foremost anything.


He consults with the highest experts in many fields.


Yet again, so far we have two names. Two. Два. Dos. Ni. Deux. צוויי. And one of them is Schoch--not exactly the "highest expert" in any field.


I don't think he necessarily attributes anything to being Mu though, as it's not considered to be "history" within the modern scientific paradigm.

Gee, go figure. Maybe that's because the evidence for it hovers near zero?

[Kilik]

I think many people agree it bears similarities to asian and peruvian civilizations. All sorts of myths and traditions bearing resemblance to the land of Mu are found in the cultures in the areas of the Pacific ocean. It is a temple and bears traits indicating a cultural importance. The land of Mu most likely exsisted on the superswell area in the ocean where there are a lot of earthquakes, volcanoes and cenotes now.

[Roadtoad]

Hey! That's my favorite Clive Cussler novel. Kind of a derail here but I find he uses a lot of woo archeology, woo history and sometime woo science to make the plotlines of his books. I wonder if Mr. Cussler actually beleives in that sort of stuff or just finds it to be fertile ground for plots for his particular brand of fiction.

Well, he does allow psychics to try their hand at finding lost shipwrecks when he and his NUMA team go out looking for them. So far, the ships are winning, and the psychics are batting zip.

Not even close when he found the Confederate submarine, the CSS Hunley.

[emperorchaos]

Not even close when he found the Confederate submarine, the CSS Hunley.

The Hunley is stored/displayed literally down the street from where I live. I've never gone to see it though.

[Cleon]

I think many people agree it bears similarities to asian and peruvian civilizations.


Well, that's nice that you think that many people agree on that, but A) so far we know of two (2) not including you and B) the evidence still isn't there.


It is a temple and bears traits indicating a cultural importance.


Evidence of this? Zilch.


The land of Mu most likely exsisted on the superswell area in the ocean where there are a lot of earthquakes, volcanoes and cenotes now.

Most likely, Mu never existed at all. At least, that's what the evidence you're presenting leads me to think.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think many people agree it bears similarities to asian and peruvian civilizations. All sorts of myths and traditions bearing resemblance to the land of Mu are found in the cultures in the areas of the Pacific ocean. It is a temple and bears traits indicating a cultural importance. The land of Mu most likely exsisted on the superswell area in the ocean where there are a lot of earthquakes, volcanoes and cenotes now.

You think many people agree? Who are these agreeable people? What evidence do you have that Mu ever even existed? What evidence do you have that Yonaguni is man made? Shall I pull a Claus on you and make a list of questions you have failed to answer?

[Roadtoad]

I would say that's overdue.

[Kilik]

They found prehistoric evidence of human habitation and cut stones above water near there. It's proven to be man made.

Dr. kimura said there is a legend in Okinawan tradition of the lost land of Horai, where they grew very powerful longevity herbs in prehistory. He said when you talk of the land of Mu, it is one and the same as Horai

[Cleon]

They found prehistoric evidence of human habitation and cut stones above water near there. It's proven to be man made.

Proven, eh? And I note that "above the water" is not synonymous with "underwater."


Dr. kimura said there is a legend in Okinawan tradition of the lost land of Horai, where they grew very powerful longevity herbs in prehistory. He said when you talk of the land of Mu, it is one and the same as Horai

Oh, is THAT what he said? And what's the evidence that what he's saying is true?

[Ceinwyn]

They found prehistoric evidence of human habitation and cut stones above water near there. It's proven to be man made.

Dr. kimura said there is a legend in Okinawan tradition of the lost land of Horai, where they grew very powerful longevity herbs in prehistory. He said when you talk of the land of Mu, it is one and the same as HoraiDr. Kimura told me there is a land of teddy bears and puppy dogs and love, and if I'm really, really good, I can go and live with them. It's true because Dr. Kimura said so.

I don't believe you if you say he's wrong. He's Dr. Kimura.

[Zep]

troll

[Ceinwyn]

trollWell duh.

But he'll keep on going, he loves to post links. Why ruin his fun?

[Correa Neto]

I think many people agree it bears similarities to asian and peruvian civilizations. All sorts of myths and traditions bearing resemblance to the land of Mu are found in the cultures in the areas of the Pacific ocean. It is a temple and bears traits indicating a cultural importance. The land of Mu most likely exsisted on the superswell area in the ocean where there are a lot of earthquakes, volcanoes and cenotes now.

Killik, do you have any idea of what is a superswell (in terms of geology, not surf)? I don´t think so, other wise you would be aware that you just wrote a lot of BS.

Are you aware of the following facts?

(1) The crust of the Pacific -as well of the Atlantic- ocean is not of the same type of rocks that compose continents (basalts for the oceanic crust and granodiorite for the continental one). Thus there is no sunken continent down there. Avaliable oceanic crust surveys in both oceans are detailed enough to detect any sunken continental crust masses large enough to qualify for Atlantis or Mu.
(2) The average depth of the oceanic floor is something between 4000 and 3000 meters. The Pacific superswells have maximum amplitudes between 680m and 1km (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JB003465.shtml; http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~johnh/AGU2003.html). Even if one uses a maximum global sea level decrease figure of 200m during one of the Ice Ages, this is far from being even anywhere close to expose the area above sea level.
(3) Superswells are most likely formed by unusually intense thermal activity at the Earth´s mantle. Thus, volcanic and seismic activity above them is not exactly unexpected. Japan is an island arc complex, a completely different geological feature, developed nearby subduction zones. These are the sites where most seismic and volcanic activity are concentrated. The areas above superswells are boring, compared to island arcs.
(4) Cenotes are a local denomination for sinkholes, natural features composed by collpase of caves, that are most commonly formed on limestone. Where have you obtained the information of cenotes in the Pacific ocean? There are caves in many Pacific oceanic islands, but they are formed in basalts, lava tubes or ersional features, for example. If the roof collapses, here´s your cenote. So what does it proves? That your fantasies are nothing but only fantasies.

What about informing yourself with science before accepting those baseless fantasies?

[Roadtoad]

I'm reminded that granitic structures, such as Half Dome in Yosemite, tend to shed their outer layers as magma presses upward from the Earth's core. It's kind of interesting to see large curved slabs of rock sliding away very slowly from the main body. (About 1-6" a year, usually.) Considering how long that rock has been under the ocean, I'm not surprised that you see "man made" cities under the sea. Me? I see what I see every time I drive over the hill into Reno.

Just a little wetter.

[c4ts]

troll

And how!

[Kilik]

10 million square miles isn't enough to qualify as consisting of some countries, small continents, or large ice age islands?

The superswell area was likely above water as a large land mass. Because of all the earthquakes and volcanoes in the area, they can affect the ground level relative to the sea level more than other areas

[Roadtoad]

10 million square miles isn't enough to qualify as countries, small continents, or largge ice age islands?

The superswell area was likely above water as a lage land mass. Because of all the earthquakes and volcanoes in the area, they can affect the ground level relative to the sea level more than other areas

And there's little evidence they were above water. Ever.

[Kilik]

Plus, every major disaster or earth change doesn't have to be a totally natural occurence. You don't know what level of sophistication prehistoric civilizations had

In otherwords, some things that modern science had deemed to be natural, in fact, are not

[Roadtoad]

Plus, every major disaster or earth change doesn't have to be a totally natural occurence. You don't know what level of sophistication prehistoric civilizations had

In otherwords, some things that modern science had deemed to be natural, in fact, are not

Oh, great. We're back to Eric Von Daaniken.

TROLL!!!

[Kilik]

Some basic info on Mu and the "superswell"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/esp_lemuria_3.htm
http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=printview&t=184&start=30

[Odin]

THOTH SAYS:
http://www.missouri.edu/%7Esbsnqf/AOM%20project/images/thoth.jpg
Stop spamming links!

[Monera Man]

those would have also been the areas with the best climate for inhabtation before the end of the ice age

The pictures are interesting. Is there any radar scanning equipment
available to show if there is anything that looks like interior
passageways or rooms? Have the investigators found anything
that looks like doorways or halls to the interior of the structure?

[Kilik]

Man made looking cave entrances. There are also caves underwater at that area with evidence that those caves were above water 10,000 years ago

[c4ts]

THOTH SAYS:
http://www.missouri.edu/%7Esbsnqf/AOM%20project/images/thoth.jpg
Stop spamming links!




Funny, I thought Ptah would be the first Egyptian god to speak out against link spamming Kiliks.

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, Kilik, but Cayce's bunk.

Where's the EVIDENCE?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/spam.jpg

[Correa Neto]

That dog is dead, you know it...

[Roadtoad]

Yaaaaaaah. Probably right.

Kilik, have one on me....

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/stfu3.jpg

[Roadtoad]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/doom/dwayne__the_rock__johnson/doom4.jpgTime to tell this boy to shut the f*** up...
I think this says it all.

[Kilik]

Here's a really interesting article explaining some about this Megalithic site
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue13/ar13japanunder.html

and
http://www.world-mysteries.com/easter_island.htm

[Checkmite]

Plus, every major disaster or earth change doesn't have to be a totally natural occurence. You don't know what level of sophistication prehistoric civilizations had

Yes, only you know what level of sophistication prehistoric civilizations had.

So tell me this - if the world's ocean levels began to rise, why didn't the survivors evacuate inland? Why didn't some of these "sophisticated" peoples live inland already? Where are all the ultramegamondosupercities? If you're suggesting that sites like Giza or Machu Piccu are actually prehistoric city remnants, then I can say that these "prehistoric civilizations" weren't very sophisticated. Those places are indeed grand, but don't hold a candle to, say, New York City, sophistication-wise.

It is irresponsible to make anything more tangible than speculative fantasy regarding these ruins. They - neither the Japanese ruins nor the Cuba structures - have been actually studied long enough to arrive at any real conclusion. All we have is photos taken by divers (in Cuba, we don't even have that). You can't hypothesize using such data - you just can't. Hancock doesn't know enough about Japanese history, geology, oceanography, or chemistry to be able to divine anything from a series of photographs, beyond that the structures appear to be artificial. He figuratively wastes his breath saying anything more. And you do, as well.

[Kilik]

That's probably because they didn't have all the means they used to have before the destruction of those civilizations. When Mu and Atlantis were destroyed the people who lived in the Kunlun and Himalaya mountains survived, and people from other lands may have also traveled and retreated there

Plus, we'll have to see new york after thousands of years, or in other words, we can't see with our eyes how the pyramids originally were

Mu and Atalntis are obviouslty the first guesses, and make the most sense, especially considering the superswell area of the pacific. Mr. Hancock showed astrological alignments at Yonaguni which also relate to okinawan building designs and south american designs, and Japanese researchers accept there are astrological alignments and agree. The stage faces east like the sphinx. Hancock dived at Yonaguni a lot, more than most poeple have probably.

[LotusMegami]

Where did these legends about Mu come from anyways? Why would anyone assume that anything found under water came from Mu?

Why should we believe such a place actually existed?

[Roadtoad]

Where did these legends about Mu come from anyways? Why would anyone assume that anything found under water came from Mu?

Why should we believe such a place actually existed?

The more I read of this, the more I think of L. Ron Hubbard.

[Checkmite]

Where did these legends about Mu come from anyways? Why would anyone assume that anything found under water came from Mu?

Why should we believe such a place actually existed?

The lost continent of Mu was invented by someone named Augustus L'Plongeon, a self-proclaimed archaeologist who liked to trapse around Maya ruins in the late 19th century. After returning from one particular trip, he declared that he had deciphered the Maya written language, and that texts on Maya ruins told stories of how the Maya came from a sunken land in the Pacific called "Mu", which was home to a civilization even older than that of Atlantis! He said the glyphs told the story of the Maya as a peaceful, earth-loving and spiritually wise people. Of course, in the mid-to-late 20th century, when the Maya glyph system was really deciphered, it turned out that no mention of "Mu" could be found on any Maya ruins, and that the Maya actually claimed to have come from a land in the far north called "Aztlan" (migration, anyone?); it also turned out that the Maya were a war-like, conquest-bent people who liked to rip hearts out of living victims' chests. Indeed, L'Plongeon must've just blipped right over some prominent Maya reliefs which actually depict ritual disembowelment.

The damage had been done, however, and a book called "Lost Continent of Mu" was published in 1930 or thereabouts, and is still in print today.

There are other supposed "lost continents" of course, such as the famous Atlantis and the somewhat more obscure Lemuria, but those are stories for another time.

[Zep]

And the more I read of this, the more I think Kilik is yanking our chains...

[Pope130]

There are other supposed "lost continents" of course, such as the famous Atlantis and the somewhat more obscure Lemuria, but those are stories for another time.


My favorite is ERB's "Caprona", there be dinosaurs and babes there.

Robert

[DrMatt]

http://www.devilducky.com/media/22769/

[c4ts]

The lost continent of Mu was invented by someone named Augustus L'Plongeon, a self-proclaimed archaeologist who liked to trapse around Maya ruins in the late 19th century. After returning from one particular trip, he declared that he had deciphered the Maya written language, and that texts on Maya ruins told stories of how the Maya came from a sunken land in the Pacific called "Mu", which was home to a civilization even older than that of Atlantis! He said the glyphs told the story of the Maya as a peaceful, earth-loving and spiritually wise people.

Wow. That's one hell of a way to misread the Maya. It's like he saw the temple paintings and said "Oh, their hands aren't soaked in their own sacrificial blood, they're fingerpainting with daggers and bowls!" And therefore the cache of Mayan weapons nearby must be PURELY CEREMONIAL! I declare that the Maya were from a magical land!

Evidence would suggest the Maya were about as peace-loving as any other civilization in Central America. They weren't exactly "in harmony with nature" either, since they needed to build large cities and dump waste into the surrounding bodies of water, and they had a tendency to chew coca leaves for love of a white, powdery secretion. Kind of puts their love of cocoa beans into perspective. And I may not be the best judge of what's "spiritually wise" and what isn't, but ripping some guy's organs out to appease your psychadelic god doesn't strike me as wise.

[Kilik]

Graham Hancock explained that they were misinterpreting even more ancient texts they found at even more ancient ruins , which weren't about human sacrifice but the Mayans thought they were

Probably they didn't start out doing that, but eventually did

[Cleon]

Graham Hancock explained that they were misinterpreting even more ancient texts they found at even more ancient ruins , which weren't about human sacrifice but the Mayans thought they were

And his evidence for that was what, exactly?

[UrsulaV]

And his evidence for that was what, exactly?

Haven't we established by now that "Because Hancock said so," is good enough for Kilik?

[Checkmite]

Graham Hancock explained that they were misinterpreting even more ancient texts they found at even more ancient ruins , which weren't about human sacrifice but the Mayans thought they were

Probably they didn't start out doing that, but eventually did

I'm not so sure. Ritual human sacrifice was a very key social concept in all major American cultures, including the Incas, Mayas, and (to the most ridiculous extent) the Aztecs. The Aztecs were crazy for it. Some of the wars they fought were expressly for the purpose of gathering sacrificial victims.

Anyway, one of the more well-known forms of Maya sacrifice involved a team game in which you use a yoked stick to propel a ball through a large hoop on the opposing team's end of the court or field. This game, which disturbingly resembled Quidditch, was called Ulama, and in the largest and most important games, the entire losing team was ritually sacrificed. Talk about "playing your heart out" - I'm sure those games must've been very exciting indeed. Some reliefs at the Maya city of Tajin portray this game and its result in somewhat graphic detail. Interestingly, the Aztec version of this game (Tlachti) never resulted in any sacrifices, in a counterintuitive twist of fate.

I can think of no way in which a glyph which depicts somebody being ripped open and having his organs removed could be interpreted in any other than the obvious way.

[Kilik]

The Aztecs were one of many war like nahuatl speaking tribes known as Chichimeca that poured into Central America in the 12th century AD. They misunderstood the meanings of the oral traditions and writings of the once great but fading mexican civlization they had conquered

[Roadtoad]

The Aztecs were one of many war like nahuatl speaking tribes known as Chichimeca that poured into Central America in the 12th century AD. They misunderstood the meanings of the oral traditions and writings of the once great but fading mexican civlization they had conquered

Give it a rest, Kilik. Most of the Archeology texts I've read over the years have pretty well established the Aztecs were the ones cracking heads in sacrifice to their "Gods." Smithsonian and National Geographic have both extablished this, as well.

Mu is more fiction than fact. Let's "Mu"ve on, shall we?

[Kilik]

They did it through misinterpretation of traditions coming from the people they had conquered

[Yeah_Right]

There is a major missing link in history, that modern scholors such as graham hancock have pointed out, a missing prehistoric civilization that is the source of the knowledge and culture of many supposedly independantly develoloped cultures. This is obviously the very bordeline, beginning of Mu

Or, hey!, if it is man made, who's to say it isn't part of the Japanese islands that sunk? Course that ain't quite as mysterious as Hancocks fantasies, errr, ideas that is.

[Roadtoad]

They did it through misinterpretation of traditions coming the people they had conquered

:hb:

I give up...

:tr:

[Yeah_Right]

All in all, Hancock doesn't have that much to go on. The positions of the temples in Cambodia and the pyramids on the Giza Plateau all have reasonable explantions for why they're placed in their positions. In the Horizon documentary doesn't Hancock have the sunken Japanese formation as part of Atlantis, not Mu? And if it is part of Atlantis, why isn't it in the Atlantic? At one time he thought Antarctica was the home to this lost civlization, until it was moved north by a great catastrophe and was eventually covered with snow? Of course Plato said nothing about Atlantis being covered with snow, but rather that it sank. It was after he found out the ice in Antarctica had been there for 400,000 years that he changed his mind and looked under water. I am not sure why he didn't look in the apparent place that Plato put the continet. Could it be that there just isn't anything there?

I recall reading somewhere on the net that Hancock was giving up on his Atlantis theory since he was being heavily criticized for it. Roughly translated, no one in the scientific community would believe him without question. By the looks of it though, he is still going strong based on his website, and as long as there are those out there that'll hang on to the fantastic idea of techonolgically advance golden age. I am still not quite sure what techologically advanced means really in this case. Does it mean they had motorized vehicles and space craft? Perhaps, Kilik, you could explain what this mysterious land was supposed to have had?

[Nyarlathotep]

:hb:

I give up...

:tr:

Hey, he had almost half of a fact right in that post. That's some kind of record for the guy.

The Aztecs tried to emulate the Toltecs. But they didn't conquer them. The Toltecs were gone by the time the Aztecs came onto the scene. Of course it is a long way from them trying to emulate another nation that had long vanished to they were trying to emulate some long lost advanced civilization.

[Cleon]

The Aztecs were one of many war like nahuatl speaking tribes known as Chichimeca that poured into Central America in the 12th century AD.

Whoa, are you off base. (I suppose this is what you get from reading fantasy rather than learning about real archaeology.)

The existence of Teotihuacan and Tula pretty much establishes beyond a doubt that the "Aztecs" (really, Mexica) were part of a long tradition of culture in mesoamerica, starting in the early hundreds a.d. and going through several civilizations until they were wiped out by the Spanish.

The culture of Teotihuacan, which predated the Mexica by over 1000 years, mirrors that of the Mexica so closely that it's sheer wishful thinking to assume that the Mexica were some sort of aberration.

The Chichimeca were nomadic, and certainly no more warlike than the Toltecs (where that lovely tradition of human sacrifice originated).

And before you respond to this with another "I think," keep in mind your opinion is probably wrong.


They misunderstood the meanings of the oral traditions and writings of the once great but fading mexican civlization they had conquered

Your repitition notwithstanding, there is zero evidence of this.

[Kilik]

You can't really have history so pinpointed and mapped out like you'd think

[Cleon]

You can't really have history so pinpointed and mapped out like you'd think

Pretty damn close!

We're not talking about hunter-gatherer cultures, here. We're talking about cultures that not only have a crapload of physical evidence, but also written histories! Not to mention documentation from cultures that encountered them--such as the Maya, such as the Spanish. As a result, we have a really good idea of the general history of Mesoamerica. Down to specific rulers, dynasties, and events, even. Hell, we even know about the games their children played!

See, Kilik, this is why you need to actually research the science of archaeology rather than just swallow hook, line, and sinker all the crap fed to you by these kooks. Learn why archaeologists know what they know, learn how they arrive at their conclusions. Without that knowledge, you're simply not equipped to know what's real from what's not--you're just recycling tidbits you gleam from these TV shows and basing your conclusions on appeals to authority. Authorities that may not be all that valid--but you don't get that from the TV show.

I repeat the suggestion I made before--take an intro to archaeology class.

[Kilik]

You wouldn't get anything from archaeology. Graham Hancock sees the realities that archaeology blinds people to. I have no time to examine the trees when I can read Graham Hancock you summarizes the whole forest well, and gets to the important issues, and to information that's relevant. I know what is relevant, and what dates are relevant, so if Hancock's research matches that, of course it's true

[emperorchaos]

You wouldn't get anything from archaeology. Graham Hancock sees the realities that archaeology blinds people to.

How can you even say that? The beauty of archaeology is that it is a SCIENCE and the truth of Graham Hancock is that he is jumping to conclusions.

In all honesty, I feel that you are the one who is blinded. With sciences like archaeology, data is found, gathered, and examined. If more data is found, it may either support or reject the previously-held believes. With Graham Hancock, you have potential data that is then hoarded and profitized upon, without any review from respected peers.

There are no absolutes. You're purporting that these findings, this so-called "Mu", is the absolute, and won't except anything else. Why?

-=-=-=-

By the way, did you get your username from Soul Calibur?

[Kilik]

yeah, I took my username straight from Soul Caliber.

Well, you don't respect me, and okay, I don't know everything about astrology, but I reviewed it and as far as the numerology, some surprising patterns are shown throughout the world even beyond just the things Mr. Hancock examined

[Cleon]

You wouldn't get anything from archaeology.
Well, except for a solid, material, accurate account of history and culture, I guess you're right. :rolleyes:


Graham Hancock sees the realities that archaeology blinds people to.

Ah, yes, the Prophet (pbuh) sees that which facts blind us to. :rolleyes:


I have no time to examine the trees when I can read Graham Hancock you summarizes the whole forest well,

Well, unless he's feeding you a load of bull.


and gets to the important issues, and to information that's relevant. I know what is relevant, and what dates are relevant, so if Hancock's research matches that, of course it's true
There's something really, really wrong with that...Can you figure out what it is?

[emperorchaos]

yeah, I took my username straight from Soul Caliber.

Cool. I love that game.

Well, you don't respect me,

I didn't say I don't respect you. I actually have a lot of respect for you for sticking to what you say despite everything that everyone else has said against you, even though I agree with them.

This should sum it up:
"Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day." -Ralph Waldo Emerson


and okay, I don't know everything about astrology, but I reviewed it and as far as the numerology, some surprising patterns are shown throughout the world even beyond just the things Mr. Hancock examined

Surprising patterns are found everywhere. I don't know enough about numerology, other than this kid who has some wicked ideas of his own. He's a genius, and as sloppy as geniuses come, and his ideas are solid. But until they have peer-reviewed backing, I won't accept them as fact. And even if I did, my opinion can always change with new evidence.

And in terms of surprising patterns in astrology... well, astrology doesn't work for me. I'm the exact opposite of what a Scorpio is supposed to be (except for my temper). And since astronomy came from astrology, let me mention a surprising patters that astronomers have discovered. It's called the Horsehead Nebula, and I think it is a fitting example of how you can find whatever you want if you look hard enough for it (even if the evidence is against you, and even if your evidence is false!).

That's just what you've done. You've looked hard enough for what you believe, despite the evidence against it... and your evidence I consider false because it is nothing more than a bunch of pictures and/or links to other sites containing pictures and maintaining the same thing without actual credentials or reviews.

-=-=-

With all that being said, it was your initial post on this very subject of of the "monoliths" found in the Pacific that caused me to stop lurking and start posting.

[Checkmite]

You wouldn't get anything from archaeology. Graham Hancock sees the realities that archaeology blinds people to.

You don't understand anything about archaeology, aside from that it deals with bygone peoples. Statements like "some sites are dated only using carbon-dating" prove you are ignorant of the methodology and philosophy of archaeology. In other words, you have no place to put down archaeology the way you have.

Graham Hancock not only snubs "modern scientists". He snubs some of the greatest civilizations that ever graced this planet's surface. He insults them by robbing them of their greatest and most fantastic achievements, insisting that those people were too stupid to have accomplished them. He denies their blood, sweat, and tears. And he calls them liars by insisting that what they wrote about themselves is false.

You say "you can't really have history so pinpointed and mapped out like you'd think", but you fail to realize all that's needed to rebut this statement is to turn it around on you. You post thread after thread, making wild claims and accusations. When taken to task for it, you hide behind your idol Hancock. Haven't you noticed how quickly every single one of your individual claims is debunked, shattered, or rebutted? Haven't you realized that amongst the lot of us here, we can debunk any wild, baseless claim you can make, whether you got it from Hancock or elsewhere? EVERYTHING Hancock has postulated has been ripped up, cast down, and torn asunder by genuine scientists who study ancient peoples for a living. Every last one. We know where to look to find these things - and you would, too, if you'd make an attempt to look for them. Your biggest mistake is reading Graham Hancock's books and just nodding your head like a good little sheep, instead of getting your fingernails dirty digging on the web to find out whether he's full of it or not - and if you had, you'd have found out that he is so full of it, he IS "it". Instead, you live and breathe his every word, and whenever we show that he is wrong, you simply repeat yourself like some insane parrot, as if it will become any more true simply through repetition.

But what you believe has nothing to do with reality. No matter how many times you claim that Angkor Wat is mapped on Draco (it isn't), or the shafts in the Great Pyramid point to Orion (they don't), or the Mesoamericans thought Cortes' was Quetzalcoatl because he was white-skinned (they didn't), you will still be just as wrong as you were the first time you said it.

You've simply come to the wrong place. None of your claims here are new and exciting. It's a dance we've danced before, with other posters, whom we have systematically destroyed with plain and simple facts. You present us with a unique opportunity to truly educate people, to teach people things that they normally wouldn't know or have access to. Your threads are remarkably educational, but the educational content doesn't come from you. And we are well practiced in doing what we do; we enjoy it. Ground Hancock with scrambled Bauval and fried West, with some puree'd Berlitz and whipped von Daniken happens to be one of my favorite breakfast dishes - I eat it ALL THE TIME.

Give up.

[Yeah_Right]

You don't understand anything about archaeology, aside from that it deals with bygone peoples. Statements like "some sites are dated only using carbon-dating" prove you are ignorant of the methodology and philosophy of archaeology. In other words, you have no place to put down archaeology the way you have.

Graham Hancock not only snubs "modern scientists". He snubs some of the greatest civilizations that ever graced this planet's surface. He insults them by robbing them of their greatest and most fantastic achievements, insisting that those people were too stupid to have accomplished them. He denies their blood, sweat, and tears. And he calls them liars by insisting that what they wrote about themselves is false.

You say "you can't really have history so pinpointed and mapped out like you'd think", but you fail to realize all that's needed to rebut this statement is to turn it around on you. You post thread after thread, making wild claims and accusations. When taken to task for it, you hide behind your idol Hancock. Haven't you noticed how quickly every single one of your individual claims is debunked, shattered, or rebutted? Haven't you realized that amongst the lot of us here, we can debunk any wild, baseless claim you can make, whether you got it from Hancock or elsewhere? EVERYTHING Hancock has postulated has been ripped up, cast down, and torn asunder by genuine scientists who study ancient peoples for a living. Every last one. We know where to look to find these things - and you would, too, if you'd make an attempt to look for them. Your biggest mistake is reading Graham Hancock's books and just nodding your head like a good little sheep, instead of getting your fingernails dirty digging on the web to find out whether he's full of it or not - and if you had, you'd have found out that he is so full of it, he IS "it". Instead, you live and breathe his every word, and whenever we show that he is wrong, you simply repeat yourself like some insane parrot, as if it will become any more true simply through repetition.

But what you believe has nothing to do with reality. No matter how many times you claim that Angkor Wat is mapped on Draco (it isn't), or the shafts in the Great Pyramid point to Orion (they don't), or the Mesoamericans thought Cortes' was Quetzalcoatl because he was white-skinned (they didn't), you will still be just as wrong as you were the first time you said it.

You've simply come to the wrong place. None of your claims here are new and exciting. It's a dance we've danced before, with other posters, whom we have systematically destroyed with plain and simple facts. You present us with a unique opportunity to truly educate people, to teach people things that they normally wouldn't know or have access to. Your threads are remarkably educational, but the educational content doesn't come from you. And we are well practiced in doing what we do; we enjoy it. Ground Hancock with scrambled Bauval and fried West, with some puree'd Berlitz and whipped von Daniken happens to be one of my favorite breakfast dishes - I eat it ALL THE TIME.

Give up.


Yeah, what he said.

[Kilik]

No, archaeologists are still interpreting peices, from an "outsiders" view, and not much of it is relevant if even correct. So is Graham Hancock looking from an outsiders view, but WAY closer to the real truth than any of the doubters. Graham Hancock is not my starting point or base, I posted stuff on the firt page that has nothing to do with him, but that I think quite spookily correlates with his findings.

Precession as a basis for the astrology of many unrelated cultures can't be denied. Neither can a recurring date of 10,500 BC

The Pyramids were built by Thoth, that is defintely shown to be true. But Graham Hancock is onto something, he has found a real correlation to Orion and Osiris

[Checkmite]

No, archaeologists are still interpreting peices, from an "outsiders" view, and not much of it is relevant if even correct.

What do you mean, "not much of it is relevant"? Are you saying that only clues to this mythic "ultraprehistoric civilization" are important, and that what we've learned about these wonderful, ancient cultures is just so much trash? It seems Hancock's disrespect for the past has rubbed off on you. Those backward savages don't matter anyway, do they?

So is Graham Hancock looking from an outsiders view, but WAY closer to the real truth than any of the doubters.

How do you know for sure?

[Kilik]

No, I think the Egyptians did have pretty advanced knowledge form 10,500 BC on.

Precessional numbers being foundational and fundamental in so many different places

Sometimes it's the majority of egyptologists who underestimate the ancients

[Checkmite]

Sometimes it's the majority of egyptologists who underestimate the ancients

You can't be guilty of underestimating something that hasn't been proven to exist yet.

[UrsulaV]

Saaaay, Kilik...

Who was this "Thoth" guy you're always on about? And did he really have an ibis head? (NO LINKS. TELL me, in your own words, in clear lucid prose. No links.)

I mean, if the Pyramids were really built by a prehistoric furry, there's a community that'd dearly love to know...

[Kilik]

what community?

Yea did The Egyptians think the animal headed beings to be gods

[Checkmite]

Yea did The Egyptians think the animal headed beings to be gods

Yes, they did. After all, they consistently drew them the same way and said they were gods. But I think we've established that what the Egyptians said about themselves doesn't matter; all that matters is what you say about the Egyptians.

[UrsulaV]

what community?

Yea did The Egyptians think the animal headed beings to be gods

I'm not interested in what the Egyptians thought, I'm curious as to what YOU think, since you're the one claiming he built the Pyramids.

[supercorgi]

You wouldn't get anything from archaeology. Graham Hancock sees the realities that archaeology blinds people to. I have no time to examine the trees when I can read Graham Hancock you summarizes the whole forest well, and gets to the important issues, and to information that's relevant.

No, archaeologists are still interpreting peices, from an "outsiders" view, and not much of it is relevant if even correct. So is Graham Hancock looking from an outsiders view, but WAY closer to the real truth than any of the doubters.

Although this, and related, threads have been very educational (to everyone except Kilik of course), it's abundantly clear that nothing is ever going to cause him to change his mind. This is a religion for him and Graham Hancock is its leading guru.

[Kilik]

No, it's that you're trying to claim there's nothing to his claims when in fact there is a lot of substance to them, and he does a lot of research to find the truth

[Cleon]

No, it's that you're trying to claim there's nothing to his claims when in fact there is a lot of substance to them, and he does a lot of research to find the truth

:notm:

[Ethel_Soir]

No, it's that you're trying to claim there's nothing to his claims when in fact there is a lot of substance to them, and he does a lot of research to find the truth

You should investigate Hancock's claims on your own.

[Roadtoad]

You should investigate Hancock's claims on your own.

What? Ask for such mundane things as FACTS? What's the matter with you people?

Huh! And you call yourselves "Skeptics..." :D

[C S Costa]

That's it, I can't stay quiet anymore.
Kilik,
I was once, eons ago, a rabid VonDaniken evangelist. I would, like a good used-car salesman, ignore the leaks and proudly sell the shiny paintjob. I guess my eventual awakening came by becoming a mechanic and seeing the wreck beneath. It took a few years to acquire the skills, but with the guidance of people very much like Joshua Korosi and friends, who weren't afraid to tell me I was being a bit misguided, I never would have learned to look at the world with my eyes and ears open, not welded shut.
But then again, if they weren't selling the wrecks, I never would of learned how to fix 'em.
Keep up the good work, Kilik!

Now I'll go back to being quiet again.

[Roadtoad]

No, it's that you're trying to claim there's nothing to his claims when in fact there is a lot of substance to them, and he does a lot of research to find the truth

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

[magicflute]

Yes, I believe Kilik!!! I think we have at long last found the "Lost Continent of Woo" I suggests he moves back home.

[Kilik]

Well, you might immediately blow me off as just another Von Daniken or Graham Hancock fan, but remember I showed things with connections to, was in line with, and which agreed with Graham Hancocks findings that had no connection to his work.

He also does not agree with Erich Von Daniken on quite a few things.

He has his own theories which are dfferent, and I think much stronger.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, you might immediately blow me off as just another Von Daniken or Graham Hancock fan, but remember I showed things with connections to, was in line with, and which agreed with Graham Hancocks findings that had no connection to his work.

He also does not agree with Erich Von Daniken on quite a few things.

He has his own theories which are dfferent, and I think much stronger.

Are you still babbling?

You showed precisely squat. If anything, you 'proved' that by cherry-picking facts, rejecting facts that don't conform to your ideas and redefining terms to suit your purpose, you can convince yourself of just about anything.

[Kilik]

I'm not redefining anything, or making up meanings to things

[Roadtoad]

Well, you might immediately blow me off as just another Von Daniken or Graham Hancock fan, but remember I showed things with connections to, was in line with, and which agreed with Graham Hancocks findings that had no connection to his work.

He also does not agree with Erich Von Daniken on quite a few things.

He has his own theories which are dfferent, and I think much stronger.

Well, whoopdie-sh**. So Hancock and Von Daniken disagree. The point is, however, Kilik, that THEY'RE STILL WRONG.

So much of what Von Daniken pointed out as "evidence" has been debunked so often, so clearly, that the only reason for reading him is to see how far some people will go in their delusions. Ditto Hancock, sadly, and your continued posting here places you in the same boat.

You remind me of the driver we trained where I once worked. He kept getting himself into stupid situations which he couldn't get his @$$ out of. Once, we had to call in a crane to get him out of a particularly sticky situation. I asked him, "Why do you do this? Every time you make the same moves, at the same locations, and you get yourself stuck."

"Yeah," he told me, "but I figured this time, I wouldn't."

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the prime definition of either insanity or stupidity. Tell you what, Kilik. You tell me which.

(Nyar, when we hook up at TAM, I owe you a brew.)

[Roadtoad]

I'm not redefining anything, or making up meanings to things

Give it a rest, Dude.

Here. Have a bunnygirl.

http://yukatakeuchifan.anihost.ru/MarilynJ.jpg

[Nyarlathotep]

(Nyar, when we hook up at TAM, I owe you a brew.)

Cool. I look forward to it.

[c4ts]

what community?


Don't be shy, Kilik. We all know you hang out at the Ki Sanctuary practicing transformation styles with Chrono and his wolfkin buddies.