Seperating Atlantis from reality

a reply to: SLAYER69

I have been away from this site far too long and am sure I have missed the well thought out post you have come to make.
This is certainly another well put together post.

Atlantis always seems like a go to answer when a find is made where the remains lay in an ocean, not necessarily by the people who discover it, but on most cases if any type of media gets wind of it and an interesting discovery can turn into a mockery with the name "Atlantis" being thrown around before it even gets a chance to be properly explored. It is a shame because every discovery in significant to the past whether or not it has to do with Atlantis.

The problem with Atlantis is people tend to think of it as this advanced city with domes and alien artifacts, I blame movies and books for a lot of this, when in fact it ever did exist, it would be most inline with other cultures at the time. I personally believe there was no one Atlantis, but in fact there were several places that had the name, kind of a label of a kind of place, like a trade center or something. Do I have any proof of this, no I do not, it is just a personal belief.

Lost cultures along long since wiped away rivers and lakes makes sense. As that is where they would normally set up as the water would supply food for the people who settled near them. As well, people that lived along the shores of oceans most likely would continue to move inland as waters rose given they had the time. There should be evidence left behind in these areas and that is possibly what we see in some of these underwater discoveries.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Hanslune

I think you are just trying to derail this thread because you don't want people to think about Atlantis. No one is forcing you to read this. Your flooding approaches troll like behavior.

Its called answering all the posts directed at me - feel free to ignore them.

I agree people should THINK about Atlantis - they rarely actually do.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Hanslune

One of your problems is that you are so busy trying to think of an arguement, you fail to read the comment carefully enough to understand what has been said.

"Hell we even see over cuts on some stone, where whatever tool was used has gone right over the mark it was cutting to which would take hours with any conceivable hand tool."

He is referring to a cut that goes past the corner like what you would see if you cut a squared block with a circular blade.

You have a fine critical attitude which would be sharpened with careful listening.

I've read that and my question is - fine show us the evidence of this 'circular' blade? Statements are not facts which is why I show images or cite experts when I can - I also offer up theories. Opinions on matters of stone cutting are best made with actual evidence.

originally posted by: AlienCarnage
a reply to: SLAYER69



The problem with Atlantis is people tend to think of it as this advanced city with domes and alien artifacts, I blame movies and books for a lot of this, when in fact it ever did exist, it would be most inline with other cultures at the time. I personally believe there was no one Atlantis, but in fact there were several places that had the name, kind of a label of a kind of place, like a trade center or something. Do I have any proof of this, no I do not, it is just a personal belief.

Yep this is the CPA vs NAA problem. CPA stands for 'Classic Plato Atlantis' which had (according to the story) a well advanced bronze age culture. NAA stands for New Age Atlantis. NAA came into being when people started to associate aliens and super technology to the original story. I use to teach classes on these types of subjects and I would survey my students and found that 80% believed in NAA Atlantis and most had never actually read what Plato wrote........go figure.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Hanslune

One of your problems is that you are so busy trying to think of an arguement, you fail to read the comment carefully enough to understand what has been said.

"Hell we even see over cuts on some stone, where whatever tool was used has gone right over the mark it was cutting to which would take hours with any conceivable hand tool."

He is referring to a cut that goes past the corner like what you would see if you cut a squared block with a circular blade.

You have a fine critical attitude which would be sharpened with careful listening.

I've read that and my question is - fine show us the evidence of this 'circular' blade? Statements are not facts which is why I show images or cite experts when I can - I also offer up theories. Opinions on matters of stone cutting are best made with actual evidence.

The problem is you have a bunch of crackpots . . . . . .. Errr . . . . . Researchers that write books, appear in Television programs and appear in videos that talk about how certain marks are made and automatically say they had to be made with a modern type of tool based on what they see. They do not do the due diligence of going through all of the possibilities of techniques that could have been used or other reasons the marks could be there such as positioning tools causing the marks. They do not seem to even consider any of these things as possibilities, they go right for the easy answer, that they must have been using something that is inline with the modern tools we have today.

These people are usually well spoken and seem to always be an "authority" in their field. They present themselves this way in their books and are presented this way on the Television programs and videos that they make appearances on. People who watch the shows are basically not informed that these people have not gone through the proper course of investigating for themselves, they usually read things others have written and just look at pictures or videos and make uninformed hypothesis. So the people who see and hear these things from these "researchers", believe them to be true and then reiterate what they have heard.

Hasn't it been proven already, even in this time, that Atlantis was an ancient city on the continent we call Pangea? The story is a distro of the ancient Jewish story of Noah or something where a small group of sruvivers survive on a ship and land near Egypt after their God is angered and destroys the land through water?

originally posted by: JohanikaDeVries
Hasn't it been proven already, even in this time, that Atlantis was an ancient city on the continent we call Pangea? The story is a distro of the ancient Jewish story of Noah or something where a small group of sruvivers survive on a ship and land near Egypt after their God is angered and destroys the land through water?

Well no it hasn't - I've seen versions of what you are saying before but in different 'flavors'.

Pangea existed from circa 400-175 million years ago so ...........nah.

originally posted by: AlienCarnage


The problem is you have a bunch of crackpots . . . . . .. Errr . . . . . Researchers that write books, appear in Television programs and appear in videos that talk about how certain marks are made and automatically say they had to be made with a modern type of tool based on what they see.

I believe the PC term is 'gentlemen and ladies adapted to alternative methods of thought', or 'fantastical belief'.

They present themselves this way in their books and are presented this way on the Television programs and videos that they make appearances on. People who watch the shows are basically not informed that these people have not gone through the proper course of investigating for themselves, they usually read things others have written and just look at pictures or videos and make uninformed hypothesis. So the people who see and hear these things from these "researchers", believe them to be true and then reiterate what they have heard.

Absolutely, and they are being told things they find exciting or interesting - and want to believe. Modern people are use to stories that are as exciting (and unrealistic) as made in movies. Science dampens down what can and what cannot fit in to a viable fantasy world.

I remember being let down when the first probes to Mars didn't find Barsoom. I knew it wouldn't be there of course - but it would have been cool if it had been. I reluctantly accepted - after a thirty second delay - that Mars had a reality different from the one ERB wrote about. Many people don't do that they keep with the fantasy what Plato wrote about as influence by modern writers and Youtubers.

At least they haven't turned cannibalistic on us-yet! One of the interesting aspect of fantastical thinking is that they agree on only one thing -that orthodoxy is wrong - often in various shades of wrongness but the alternative deep thinkers cannot come up with a common vision of what is the counter to orthodoxy. Just lots of contradictory fantasy.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Hanslune

One of your problems is that you are so busy trying to think of an arguement, you fail to read the comment carefully enough to understand what has been said.

"Hell we even see over cuts on some stone, where whatever tool was used has gone right over the mark it was cutting to which would take hours with any conceivable hand tool."

He is referring to a cut that goes past the corner like what you would see if you cut a squared block with a circular blade.

You have a fine critical attitude which would be sharpened with careful listening.

I've read that and my question is - fine show us the evidence of this 'circular' blade? Statements are not facts which is why I show images or cite experts when I can - I also offer up theories. Opinions on matters of stone cutting are best made with actual evidence.

Firstly did I say it was done with a circular blade? I said these over cuts would take hours with any conceivable hand tool, and that was my point. What idiot would spend hours cutting a stone beyond what was needed?
My evidence comes from knowledge of how materials are worked and with what tools are needed to work them. This knowledge is based on engineering facts and not opinion. Whatever tools were used they had to be hard enough to cut the material in question, so for stones like granite the only materials hard enough are of a similar or greater hardness. That leaves us with abrasive tooling techniques only. The problem with that is not only the huge amount of time needed (I know you think they had all the time in the world) but the limits to what cuts can be made using such a technique.

Those pictures you posted of what you claim was a quarry earlier in the thread if anything show how oddly the stone was extradited. You said that it was later used to practice on or turned into a religious site, but this is just speculation on your part. So if opinions on matters of stone cutting are best made with actual evidence. Where is your evidence for that?

originally posted by: surfer_soul

Firstly did I say it was done with a circular blade? I said these over cuts would take hours with any conceivable hand tool, and that was my point. What idiot would spend hours cutting a stone beyond what was needed?

No Tom54 said it

He is referring to a cut that goes past the corner like what you would see if you cut a squared block with a circular blade.

Dual answer

You ever cut wood? Ever cut a board? Ever place that board atop another board so you have saw room? Ever by accident cut into the base or foundation board? I have - looks like the ancient Egyptians and others made the same mistake - having started the cut shifting the stone while cutting it would be more difficult that just finishing the cut. However for the quarries I believe the Inca and those before them bashed them out or possibly used leverage. I am not aware of their having used cutting for the purpose of detaching stones from bedrock.

My evidence comes from knowledge of how materials are worked and with what tools are needed to work them. This knowledge is based on engineering facts and not opinion. Whatever tools were used they had to be hard enough to cut the material in question, so for stones like granite the only materials hard enough are of a similar or greater hardness. That leaves us with abrasive tooling techniques only. The problem with that is not only the huge amount of time needed (I know you think they had all the time in the world) but the limits to what cuts can be made using such a technique.

Those pictures you posted of what you claim was a quarry earlier in the thread if anything show how oddly the stone was extradited. You said that it was later used to practice on or turned into a religious site, but this is just speculation on your part. So if opinions on matters of stone cutting are best made with actual evidence. Where is your evidence for that?

Since you don't like my evidence we'll take a look at yours for a time:

I would suggest that you find us 'REAL' pictures of the quarries (I believe there are three) used for PP. Then provide your opinion as how the stones we cut out.

Have fun oh and this source is the best:

www.academia.edu...

And yes it explains where and how the sandstone blocks came into existence - quite clever those local mason.




Added link

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Hanslune

I've seen that before. This is the second time you side stepped the question.

I was referring to the empty places in the quarry where the stones had been removed. Would you have me believe that after they got the stone out of there, they used "much manpower and much suffering" to leave such straight perfect looking cuts in the hole where the stone had been?

Please, not another red herring.

Those places aren't the quarry. Hans has said that they are for novices to learn. But I doubt that's what those cubic-looking spaces are. I would surmise they have some significance. But they are not the result of quarrying, in any case.

Quarries that have been found show clear evidence of the use of pounding stones, just like in Egypt. The "scalloping" that the fringe tries to make out as the marks left by some big machine.

Harte

I'm really busy at 'work' these day but here is another of those odd sites that were either for masonry training, lunacy or perhaps religious reasons.

www.atlasobscura.com...





en.wikipedia.org...

www.atlasobscura.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune
However for the quarries I believe the Inca and those before them bashed them out or possibly used leverage.

Wooden wedges and a lump hammer (or equivalent) is all you need to quarry many types of stone. Given enough force in the right place, rocks fracture and split, something we had known for tens of thousands of years but only seem to have started to upscale 15,000 years ago-ish into the quarrying of megaliths. Metals just made it more accurate, quicker and flexible.

If there was an "Atlanean" genetic haplotype, I wonder how it would be distinguished and where it would be found. Speculating, I would expect a lot of Atlantis genetics to be found in west central Africa. Some possibly in America, but America was on the distant ocean side, on the other side of the mountain range. The major Atlantic ocean current would travel in a clockwise direction around the large island, making it much easier for the people on the eastern plain to sail east and then south into Africa.

I would expect the Atlaneans to be black to a certain degree.

a reply to: JimNasium

It's a little unknown factish, that Ken Griffey Sr., (ahem...), started-out playing for the Atlantis Airballs, in the the old BLOTAW, (Baseball League of the Ancient World).

Ya: he's old!

For us old Expos™ fans: we used to call them the 'Hatlanix Hairyballz'...

Not too many folks realize how popular baseball might have been in Atlantis, maybe.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: JimNasium
Not too many folks realize how popular baseball might have been in Atlantis, maybe.

Football (soccer) with four goals, one at each compass point of a circular arena. Inflated human head for a ball, just like the Aztecs.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

Whatever else, I think we can be sure that these cubic voids are not from quarrying stone. After all, blocks would have to be cut out of the face of the stone on 4 sides and then somehow broken off in the back. How does that make any sense at all?

Harte

It is mysterious (which makes it interesting) which is why I mentioned one of theories. Masonry training, others as noted earlier was possible later religious use - I am at a loss to explain how you'd get that result from and modern technique either.

It appears to be a post removal action and is well spread over the Andes but is not present AFAIK in Egypt or Sumer, etc.

Seems obvious to me that they set out to carve an empty cube out of a stone face, and that's what they did.
Why they did it is the only question. The view?

Harte

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: JimNasium
Not too many folks realize how popular baseball might have been in Atlantis, maybe.

Football (soccer) with four goals, one at each compass point of a circular arena. Inflated human head for a ball, just like the Aztecs.

Oh! Are you referring to the old FLOTAW, (Faceball League of the Ancient World)?

Yeas: that is often confused with the BLOTAW, (Baseball League of the Ancient World).

But some nasty folks snicker, and suggest that the Aztecs, and others, didn't have compi...

Others say: "Harumpf"!

a reply to: SLAYER69

Several island have disappeared recently, so I feel comfortable simply waiting for Atlantis to rise...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Islands are disappearing here and there seems like every few years. So if Atlantis was some sort of island or coastal civilization. Waiting for it to rise is as good way to find were Atlantis is as any. Or that is, only if the ocean does not continue to rise.

Not like I believe that stories from the past can be taken at a face value, could be exactly that as the stories plato heard, or could just be something people made up, or it could be story that got carried on from hundreds of thousands of years from other ages that got wiped out by who knows what and went into pre pre history to myth, or anything in between.

It is almost impossible to know exactly the past when all we have is human memory, and machinations, and rocks.

But ya, islands disappearing, happens all the time.

Land is not stable. There need not be an ocean rise for an island to sink, and land can appear without the sea receding.

Harte