Spynx's paw

Originally posted by CrossCountryRunna
wow, are you KIDDING? are you STUPID? ....find me some sources where theyve said nothing's under there and then let other people FROM OTHER COUNTRIES look under the sphinx for the proof...

Oh yes sir, right way! This is a discusison site, raw abuse isn't going to help anyone. I think its pretty ignorant for a person to claim that there is a chamber underneath the sphinx and that its never been dug, when infact it has been, but I'd be a real poor poster if I was calling people 'stupid' for not knowing that.

.....and the bimini road? if its so "natural" then why is it that in nature, coral or bedrocks do not naturally grow with a U-shaped formation- then why is one part of the road curved in a U-shape?

Lets try an experiment.

Draw a sandbar or small sand island, and oblong shape. Now draw beach rock around half of it. Now remove the island. What shape do you have?

and its kind of odd how all these mis-matched rectangular stones just "NATURALLY" fit together like a puzzle in most places...

Again, its called beach rock. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Alright, I'm new to this site as well, and though I am not about to call anyone stupid who has obviously done their homework on the subject, I also cannot agree with the statement that there is no chamber under the paw of the Sphinx. In a recorded interview with Dr. Hawass in 2003 regarding the Great Pyramid and the Pharohs that were thought to have built them, the subject was broached about the so called "secret chamber". Dr. Hawass shrugged it off and seemed to sigh as if in complete weariness for the subject.

His tired answer was that there is indeed a chamber beneath the paw of the Sphinx, and that though it has not been opened in order to preserve the fragile nature of such a room,(fearing that it might collapse a piece of the ancient and highly valuable monument not far above) he concluded that there was nothing inside at all, and that it had been merely a temporary sand form with which to support the Sphinx during its building.

Obviously, this is going to be a subject people are going to argue about for some time.

Is this the location of one of the three ancient Halls of Records supposedly left behind by the Atlanteans before their destruction? Who knows? Maybe one day the answer will appear before us and everyone can shake hands and heads and be silent on the subject. If half of you would take the time to research the most profound source modern historians have on the ancient city, Plato's argument on the subject, you would learn that the location of the Sphinx was only a relative probability for the Hall's position.

The monument he describes is possibly the one in Cairo, possibly another. Personally, I tend to side with the argument that both the Pyramids and the Sphinx are far older that Egyptians believe. And as to the argument that was made before using a quote from me, that the Great Pyramids were a tomb that had merely been plundered, that was always just the prominent theory. There has never been any evidence to support that there ever WAS any kind of funeral materials within the tomb. If you compare the three on the Giza plateau with the tombs in the Valley of the Kings, you will notice the separte layout of the supposed burial chambers. They DO NOT MATCH. Now, to play devil's advocate, this is not to say that it is obviously wrong that this could have been a Pharoh's tomb, only that it follows more precicely that the Pharoh's were enraptured by the Pyramids in their own time, even as we still are today, and sought to create their resting places to match them.

My final point is this. I have nothing but respect for every intelligent person on this site that has taken the time to research any aspect of this subject. Now, whether or not I agree with your position, I cannot tolerate or respect anyone that would call another "Stupid" simply because they could not accept a separate viewpoint. I think it is ENTIRELY possible to agree to disagree. Some of the most intelligent people I know are on the opposite side of the spectrum from my own views. Some I am in agreement with.

The point is that I believe the purpose of this site is to share views and try to further your own personal understanding and beliefs about a subject, not a place to flaunt what you believe is the 'final answer' on whatever the discussion topic may be. If you have a constructive comment, with or without sources to cite, be my guest to post and I will definately pay perfect attention to every word you have to say. But if all you are going to do is spit in the face of those who disagree with you, go to myspace and start a blog or something, but leave the philosophy and lucritive discussion to those whose blood does not boil at the drop of a hat. Have a nice day

*edited to break into paragraphs for easier reading

[edit on 22-4-2006 by masqua]

EdenKaia,
If that was your first post, allow me to congratulate you for your well-reasoned and lucid statements. But...

Originally posted by EdenKaia
...If half of you would take the time to research the most profound source modern historians have on the ancient city, Plato's argument on the subject, you would learn that the location of the Sphinx was only a relative probability for the Hall's position. The monument he describes is possibly the one in Cairo, possibly another....

I can't speak for everyone here, but I am aware of a multitude of other posters that give their opinions in this particular area of ATS that have already done exactly what you suggest. In fact, let me just say that, judging by your statements I just quoted, it appears to be you that needs to "research the most profound source modern historians have on the ancient city, Plato's argument on the subject..."
By the way, Plato is not just the most profound source, Plato is absolutely the only source.
Here:
The Critias
and
The Timaeus

Those are Plato's only (known) writings concerning Atlantis. Please read through them and then return here and post on the subject, quoting the portions about the Hall of Records and the monument you mentioned that Plato describes.

Thank you.

Harte

Alright, now this I cannot abide by. Plato's arguments are the ONLY source for Atlantean history? Tell you what, here are just a few.
1. Vishnu Purana of 2000 B.C.- One of the oldest Indian Sandskrit texts which speaks in great length and detail of a "white island" frought with highly evolved technology and architecture off of the north african coast
2. Palermo Stone (2565-2420 B.C.)- Goes on in great length regarding the original "god-kings" of atlantis and the way in which the city was built and run
3. Manetho's Egyptian Chronicles circa 250 B.C.- Also refers to the original king's list and rulers that lived during the "reign of gods" with "powers beyond that of earthly kings". It indicates the first ten of these rulers and of a great war between the Autliteans(phonetically the same as Atlantians as far as hieroglyphics are concerned) and that the city was eventually destroyed by its own power.
4. 8th column in the Hall of the temple of Ramses in Karnak- story depicts an accompanyment memorial referring to a drowned city and continent lost to the face of time.
After all of this, let us take into account that Plato was recording the words and arguments of his teacher Socrates, to which the information had been handed down from Dropides, great grandfather of Critias, and before that Solon who had attained the story from the Egyptian priests, granted whose records were all destroyed when Julius Caesar burned the Great Library in Alexandria. Then, hundreds of years before Plato even took his first step, let alone made his first argument, there was Herodotus, the traveling chronicler who in portions of the Cleo makes references to the sea in which Atlantis rested, and the continent and people themselves.
My point, is that there were and are many HISTORICALLY accurate and validated sources for the people and culture of Atlantis and that it existed. So I say again, Plato's arguments are the MOST DETAILED accounts of what we know about the lost city of Atlantis, but are certainly not the ONLY. Thank you for your comments however, they have spurned my curiosity about the two famous works and have inspired me to read over them again. If a mistake was made about the Sphinx, then I apologize, as I was sure that a reference was made by Plato. If not, then I will make another post as soon as I find the source where I found the information and correct as needed.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
The point is that I believe the purpose of this site is to share views and try to further your own personal understanding and beliefs about a subject, not a place to flaunt what you believe is the 'final answer' on whatever the discussion topic may be.

Absolutely and undeniably.

As far as other references to atlantis, there are a lot of texts that talk about islands that were powerful and then destroyred/sunk/dissapeared, etc. Only Plato refers to such an island as Atlantis. The only other source, that I am aware of, pre-plato, for atlantis, is a text by Hellanicus that was titled Atlantis. Unfortunately most of it has been lost, and all that is preserved is a small scrap.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Alright, now this I cannot abide by. Plato's arguments are the ONLY source for Atlantean history? Tell you what, here are just a few.
1. Vishnu Purana of 2000 B.C.- One of the oldest Indian Sandskrit texts which speaks in great length and detail of a "white island" frought with highly evolved technology and architecture off of the north african coast
2. Palermo Stone (2565-2420 B.C.)- Goes on in great length regarding the original "god-kings" of atlantis and the way in which the city was built and run
3. Manetho's Egyptian Chronicles circa 250 B.C.- Also refers to the original king's list and rulers that lived during the "reign of gods" with "powers beyond that of earthly kings". It indicates the first ten of these rulers and of a great war between the Autliteans(phonetically the same as Atlantians as far as hieroglyphics are concerned) and that the city was eventually destroyed by its own power.
4. 8th column in the Hall of the temple of Ramses in Karnak- story depicts an accompanyment memorial referring to a drowned city and continent lost to the face of time.
After all of this, let us take into account that Plato was recording the words and arguments of his teacher Socrates, to which the information had been handed down from Dropides, great grandfather of Critias, and before that Solon who had attained the story from the Egyptian priests, granted whose records were all destroyed when Julius Caesar burned the Great Library in Alexandria. Then, hundreds of years before Plato even took his first step, let alone made his first argument, there was Herodotus, the traveling chronicler who in portions of the Cleo makes references to the sea in which Atlantis rested, and the continent and people themselves.
My point, is that there were and are many HISTORICALLY accurate and validated sources for the people and culture of Atlantis and that it existed. So I say again, Plato's arguments are the MOST DETAILED accounts of what we know about the lost city of Atlantis, but are certainly not the ONLY. Thank you for your comments however, they have spurned my curiosity about the two famous works and have inspired me to read over them again. If a mistake was made about the Sphinx, then I apologize, as I was sure that a reference was made by Plato. If not, then I will make another post as soon as I find the source where I found the information and correct as needed.

You'll not find that source, but I do know the source for all these claims you are making. It is here, and I've been all over it a hundred times:
www.atlantisquest.com...

Please stop ignoring Plato, again, the only ancient source on Atlantis. Critias' Grandfather, Critias the Elder, is the one who told Critias the story when he was young (10 or so) during a poetry competition at the festival of Apatura. Critias the elder got it from Dropides (his father, the younger Critias' great-grandfather.) It was Dropides that supposedly got the story from Solon

Here's the complete Vishnu Purana:
www.sacred-texts.com...
which, by the way, was written in the common era - that's AD to most of us, sometime in the first millenium. You might consider that ancient, I suppose, but I do not. But anyway, have at it and show me this in the V.P., instead of paraphrasing some new age pro-Atlantis tree-hugging website.

The Palermo stone is nothing but a (very important) kings list. This list (apparently a former doorstop - good God!) agrees almost exactly with archaeological findings. They ain't found Atlantis, so how could that possibly be?

You forgot to mention the Turin Papyrus. I assume you're talking about the king'slist and not the map.

Are you really surprised that the Egyptians, who considered their Pharoahs to be Gods, considered their early kings to be god-kings?
If you buy the Egyptian story on this, I suppose you also believe that Osiris, after being dismembered, had his body parts placed back together whereupon his wife climbed aboard in order to impregnate herself.

Manethos' Aegyptiaca was based on the Turin Papyrus, it is believed. Manetho lived a hundred years after Plato, and doesn't mention Atlantis in his king's list, which he composed for the Ptolemaic dynasty, by the way - the Greek rulers of what was left of Egypt by then. Not exactly done in the full Egyptian tradition.

Lastly, I've argued here before about Ramses funerary temple and the writings found thereon. They concern the Sea Peoples, inasmuch as they mention anyone at all from some "sunken land." I suggest you run a search here on the subject. The Sea Peoples twice invaded Egypt, I believe it was during the reigns of Ramses II and then Ramses III. Doesn't exactly fit in with your pre-dynastic theory, nor does it match at all with Plato's date of Atlantean destruction.
Here's a starter on the Sea Peoples for you:
www.phoenixdatasystems.com...
Info on Ramses' temple at Medinet Habu (I assume this is the one you mean, Atlantis lovers call it the "Victory Temple," it's actually a funerary temple,):
www.courses.psu.edu...

You can't find Atlantis there, nor at atlantisquest.com

Harte

[edit on 4/22/2006 by Harte]

The point was not to match with Plato's date of Atlantean destruction, nor was it to say that Plato's arguments are not the OLDEST recorded account we have of the city, but only to show that it IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the only source in existence to refer to Atlantis. If you wish to say that Atala of the Vishnu Purana, the white island on which a fair skinned people lived, also the very same island mentioned in the Mahabharata from which a war came against the separate nations using "weapons that created great pillars of fire and smoke", far superior to any other people of the time, then be my guest. And I am not here to debate your personal idea of what is or is not ancient, that really seems irrelevant and a waste of time as it is completely up to each individual person to decide what is old or older TO THEM. It seems that in this case, I will agree to disagree with you and be done with it. As far as the sea peoples that had ties to the Egyptians,(and yes, it was Ramses the II and III) they were believed to be from the land of Keftiu, which though on separate timelines, closely mirrors Plato's Atlantis is detailed description. There are many that would site Atlantis as being nothing more than an overembellished version of the destruction of Thera, in which case you could assume that perhaps Plato or Solon made a mistake along the way in their dating of 9000 B.C., and could in fact have meant 900 B.C., which would put it much closer to the approximate time. Then you would have the similiarites between Keftiu and Plato's Atlantis become more likely the same place. Here is my final point on this subject. References exist referring to Atlantis that far predate Plato's arguments. It all just depends on where and what you personally believe Atlantis was, if you believe in it at all. That is not to disregard the teacher, as you seem to think I am doing. Plato's works are, have, and will always be a firm and timeless anchoring point around which we can wrap ourselves and our own understanding of many of life's most frustrating issues. I consider everything he wrote to be both sound and referencable as fact, but I just cannot agree with you on his arguments being the only source. Nuff said.
Moving on, have a nice day

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by only onus
The electro magnitic feilds were also used to create the "coral castle"

Electro-magnetic fields were not used to create the coral castle. The builder left no record of how he did it. He did have a truck and a winch. He did not have any devices that manipulate electromagnetic fields to move stones.

Well he did leave one clue, though noone has ever been able to figure out what he is talking about. Some think they have it cracked, but who really knows. This was on a plaque over his bed. "THE SECRET TO THE UNIVERSE IS 7129 / 6105195"

Here are some other sites that seem to dig a bit deeper than a hint, make your own judgement on these.


www.coralcastlecode.com...

www.world-mysteries.com...

EDIT
I should have read all 7 pages before posting this, it looks like it has been addressed, readdressed, etc. My personal belief is that he may have used the weight of water and pulleys to move the stones. These pieces of rock are not so enormous that water (obviously in a container) could not have been used as a counter balance for the stones to move them. Though I am confused over the numbers posted above his bed.

[edit on 4/23/2006 by infinite8]

Originally posted by EdenKaia
The point was not to match with Plato's date of Atlantean destruction, nor was it to say that Plato's arguments are not the OLDEST recorded account we have of the city, but only to show that it IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the only source in existence to refer to Atlantis.

I stand corrected. After re-reading what I said, I realize I misspoke. I said Plato was the only source, which is obviously not true. There are millions of sources on Atlantis online. Sources on Atlantis began to crop up with Madame Blavatsky and other Theosophists around the turn of the 20th century. The Sci-Fi channel has two shows that can be considered to be sources on Atlantis.

What I meant was, Plato is the only ancient source on Atlantis. There are none before him. Only a couple shortly after him, and those are commenting on Plato's dialogues. Other sources you cite, whether they come before or after Plato, do not describe a land or civilization that even remotely resembles what Plato said.

As far as old references to "sunken islands" and the like, islands sink all the time. On the Mississippi river, sand bars appear and disappear on a daily basis. Storms, tsunamis, earthquakes volcanic eruptions, all these things actually occur in the real world and sometimes they make an island or two disappear ("sink.") So it is not at all surprising that some cultures have myths about sunken islands. How many cultures have a myth about a sunken island nation? Several, probably. But of these, how many attribute bronze age technology, and dominance over all the lands surrounding the Mediterreanean (Plato's Atlantis) to that island nation? None. Not the Greeks, not the Romans, Etruscans, Egyptians, Phoenecians, no African myth, no Celtic myth, no Persian, Sumerian, Judean, Chadean no Cretan myth. No myth at all.

Originally posted by EdenKaia If you wish to say that Atala of the Vishnu Purana, the white island on which a fair skinned people lived, also the very same island mentioned in the Mahabharata from which a war came against the separate nations using "weapons that created great pillars of fire and smoke", far superior to any other people of the time, then be my guest.

You should realize that the Vishnu Prana, again, written in the common era, is a past and future history of humans. It's dates for early humans on Earth go back into the trillions of years! The use of a reference to a now-vanished island among all of the VP content is cherry-picking at it's very worst. I mean, if you are going to cite the VP as your source, you'll have to explain a whole lot more that the "white island" if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Originally posted by EdenKaiaAs far as the sea peoples that had ties to the Egyptians,(and yes, it was Ramses the II and III) they were believed to be from the land of Keftiu, which though on separate timelines, closely mirrors Plato's Atlantis is detailed description.

I handed you a link in my previous post that tells you what is written about the Sea Peoples at Medinet Habu. From the translation, it is clear that the Egyptians knew pretty much who these people were, and they listed the various different tribes/nations from which they came. The problem is, we do not know who the Egyptians were referring to (mostly) when they wrote the names of these peoples down.

Originally posted by EdenKaiaThere are many that would site Atlantis as being nothing more than an overembellished version of the destruction of Thera, in which case you could assume that perhaps Plato or Solon made a mistake along the way in their dating of 9000 B.C., and could in fact have meant 900 B.C., which would put it much closer to the approximate time.

It may be that Plato had something along the lines of Thera in the back of his mind when he fabricated this allegory. Plato was embittered by the execution of Socrates. He had a lot to say about the state of things in Athens, but he didn't wish to drink hemlock. Putting this ancient enemy beyond discovery by burying it at sea covered his tracks, and since he was glorifying the "old" Athens simultaneously, he was scot-free to criticise all he wanted. That was pretty much the entire point of Plato's Dialogues, not to recount facts, history, myth or rumor, but to accomplish the criticism of Athens without going on trial for it.

Originally posted by EdenKaiaThen you would have the similiarites between Keftiu and Plato's Atlantis become more likely the same place. Here is my final point on this subject. References exist referring to Atlantis that far predate Plato's arguments. It all just depends on where and what you personally believe Atlantis was, if you believe in it at all.

My emphasis.
Saying a thing does not bring that thing into existence. There are no "references" to Atlantis that predate Plato. There are usages of the word "Atlantis," which word is basically a reference to the world at large - Atlantis being derivative of Atlas, who holds up the world.

Originally posted by EdenKaia Plato's works are, have, and will always be a firm and timeless anchoring point around which we can wrap ourselves and our own understanding of many of life's most frustrating issues. I consider everything he wrote to be both sound and referencable as fact,

My emphasis.
If you really believe that last (bolded) part, then you haven't read much Plato.

Originally posted by EdenKaiabut I just cannot agree with you on his arguments being the only source. Nuff said.
Moving on, have a nice day

You need not agree. I'm only stating what I've found to be the truth. I didn't get my arguments from skeptical websites, nor from "believer" websites, though I have gotten terms, names and titles to use in searches from both of these types of sites. It's a lot of work. If you're really that interested, you'll end up doing it too. Remember what I've told you and please go to the sites I linked for starters, should you care to actually look into this.

Harte

EdenKaia,

I did some digging around in the Vishnu Purana because of you. Here's the only reference to Atala, or what you have referred to as "the white island," that I could find or that the index listed:

CHAP. V.
Of the seven regions of Pátála, below the earth. Nárada's praises of Pátála. Account of the serpent Śesha. First teacher of astronomy and astrology.

PARÁŚARA.--The extent of the surface of the earth has been thus described to you, Maitreya. Its depth below the surface is said to be seventy thousand Yojanas, each of the seven regions of Pátála extending downwards ten thousand. These seven, worthy Muni, are called Atala, Vitala, Nitala, Gabhastimat, Mahátala, Sutala, and Pátála 1. Their soil is severally white, black, purple, yellow, sandy, stony, and of gold. They are embellished with magnificent palaces, in which dwell numerous Dánavas, Daityas, Yakshas, and great snake-gods. The Muni Nárada, after his return from those regions to the skies 2, declared amongst the celestials that Pátála was much more delightful than Indra's heaven. "What," exclaimed the sage, "can be compared to Pátála, where the Nágas are decorated with brilliant and beautiful and pleasure-shedding jewels? who will not delight in Pátála, where the lovely daughters of the Daityas and Dánavas wander about, fascinating even the most austere; where the rays of the sun diffuse light, and not heat, by day; and where the moon shines by night for illumination, not for cold; where the sons of Danu, happy in the enjoyment of delicious viands and strong wines, know not how time passes? There are beautiful groves and streams and lakes where the lotus blows; and the skies are resonant with the Koïl's song. Splendid ornaments, fragrant perfumes, rich unguents, the blended music of the lute and pipe and tabor; these and many other enjoyments are the common portion of the Dánavas, Daityas, and snake-gods, who inhabit the regions of Pátála 3."

(my emphasis.) Source: Vishnu Purana Book II Chapter V

Atala is one of the seven regions of Patala, which is the sanskrit "underworld:"

Patala (Sanskrit) [possibly from the verbal root pat to sink, fly down or alight]

Nethermost, farthest underneath; the reference being not so much to locality or position in space, as to quality -- grossness, heaviness, or material substance. The seventh, lowest, and most material tala. It is used in Hindu literature to signify the hells, underworlds, or infernal regions, or the antipodes or Myalba. The corresponding loka or pole is bhurloka. "Meru -- the abode of the gods -- was placed . . . in the North Pole, while Patala, the nether region, was supposed to lie in the South. As each symbol in esoteric philosophy has seven keys, geographically, Meru and Patala have one significance and represent localities; while astronomically, they have another, and mean 'the two poles,' which meaning ended by their being often rendered in exoteric sectarianism -- the 'Mountain' and the 'Pit,' or Heaven or Hell" (SD 2:357).

Source: Theosophy Dictionary
also:

PATALA. [Source: Dowson's Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology] The infernal regions, inhabited by Nagas (serpents), Daityas, Danavas, Yakshas, and others. They are seven in number, and their names, according to the Vishna Purana, are Atala, Vitala, Nitala, Gabhastimat, Mahatala, Sutala, and Patala, but these name vary in different authorities.

Source
So, in the V.P., Atala is one of the regions of the underworld, and it has white soil. It's quite a stretch to turn this into Atlantis, or even into an island. But most of the pro-Atlantis websites and other such sources have done worse than this, without batting an eye. It doesn't surprise me that they would unashamedly turn Atala into Atlantis.

Harte

[edit on 4/23/2006 by Harte]

Harte, like I said before, I appreciate your opinion and have definately found some new and interesting sources to check out on the subject, but treading water is all that is happening now. I could sit here and argue whether or not Plato's Atlantis was real TO HIM, as you have seemed to inadvertantly began a possible thread over, but I'm not going to. I could sit here and argue that the reason most people associate Atala with Atlantis is precisely because of Atlas who held up the world. The Atlantean people were called such because of the comparison to their dominance over the ancient world, and the Titan that held it. But again, I'm not going to do this because I know where you stand on the subject. The sources I cited are there because they were what I found when I first became curious about the city four years ago. If a website happens to have those same sources listed, good for them. It is no great coincidence, only that the sources for Atlantean culture are indeed rare, a point which has now been thoroughly exhausted here, and therefore it makes perfect sense that someone would compile them all into a single webpage for likeminded people. My beliefs on the subject are circumstantial and neutral. Did it exist? Possibly. Maybe not. To me it is just a matter of interesting discussion, which this has definately been. There is another thread I just recently checked out on "evolution versus creationism". I would enjoy seeing some new posts there.

Lets also recall that the aztecs, in their myths, thought that they came in the distant past from an island called Aztlan, and sometimes its represented as being destrooyed by a volcano.

Regardless, there is no giant sunken continent in the atlantic ocean, so the classical idea of atlantis seems unlikely.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Regardless, there is no giant sunken continent in the atlantic ocean, so the classical idea of atlantis seems unlikely.

How do we know this when we know so very little about the bottom of any ocean in this world?

Would not a sunken city be covered probably in 10s of feet of silt?

Would it not be literally hundreds or in some cases 1000s of feet down under the surface of the water?

Most submarines that plow the underseas do not even have a small window to view their environment nor do they study the bottom of the ocean.

Then there is the obviously overlooked issue: what if ocean levels world wide are much higher now than in past?

Myself I think it cannot be discounted with proof yet that a continent is not the bottom of the atlantic ocean or part of it.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
How do we know this when we know so very little about the bottom of any ocean in this world?

?

We know whats at the bottom of the ocean. There is no continental crust. Also, continental crust can't 'sink' into oceanic crust, its, literally, lighter.

Would not a sunken city be covered probably in 10s of feet of silt?

No, not really. THere's not nearly as much sedimentation in the open oceans as in the coasts, where you have rivers and the like dumping out sediments.

Most submarines that plow the underseas do not even have a small window to view their environment nor do they study the bottom of the ocean.

Subs don't, but the many ships invovled in national and international oceanographic studies do.

Myself I think it cannot be discounted with proof yet that a continent is not the bottom of the atlantic ocean or part of it.

The atlantic ocean is made up of oceanic crust. THat crust has been growing, undisturbed by any sinking continents, from the Mid Atlantic Ridge, since before the dinosaurs went extinct. There is no continent that sunk into the Atlantic Ocean, anymore than there is an ocean sitting on top of europe right now.

I came across this site when I was doing some reasearch...I found it really useful.

dudeman.net...

There is a lot of very interesting points on that site, most of which have made for even more interesting threads. I like this site though, it basically sums up this entire group of arguments, though granted for the side of anti-Egyptian relief.

Angie,

Though you were reluctant, I am not. Mistic, I do not believe you. There, I said it.

Given the wildness of this story, it seems to me to be exactly the kind of crazy fluff you'd find on some of the sillier internet sites concerning such goofy things (reptilian shape-shifters, tall whites, Annunaki, etc.) Yet, after several google searches using variations on "sphinx tomb KGB Aliens Egypt," I found exactly nothing. There's nothing at the scifi channel website either (nor at the History Channel, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel or even Food Network, for that matter.)

Mistic,
No link, no evidence, no belief.

Harte

heres the link to the video if anyone wants it, its Bittorrent

ts.searching.com...

reply to post by only onus

i saw a similar documentary and if memory serves correctly it was a couple of german archeologists and they did find a room under the sphinx and a long tunnel leading to it which started before the paw of the sphinx

reply to post by Jack of Scythes


Has anyone heard of white powdered gold? The egyptians got it from the the temple of gold in the Sinai mountains. Research the hudson files for more info. Basically the powered gold holds the answers for the arc of the covenant, the phoenix, how to move large stones to build pyramids and the list goes on. It is even thought to cure cancer and other DNA faults.

reply to post by Earth Angel
Text

The stones in Coral Castle are made from a very dense and endurable cement mix which has been in use for thousands of years. (Todays cement is cheap, cost effective, and notably different in substance). The gate entrance was created while the cement block itself was still wet. A chalk line was snapped along the top from one diagonal corner to the other, then again on the opposing two corners. This gave the perfect centre of gravity for a steel pivot to be driven through the wet cement, or a hole to be bored with little effort. Recent scientific investigation has also supported the idea that the stones used to construct the main body of the Pyramids show lower density then the blocks that support its weight (research this yourself). Meaning that the base stones were solid rock and the upper layers were man made. This would also easily explain how they are aligned so tightly together with little space between one block and the next. This process made Leedskalnin’s job of carving and placing the largest of objects relatively easy, as he built them on the spot. Little moving was required.