It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
What about the dating of the Sphinx? It was built before Egypt went through its wet period where the Sphinx inclosure was full of water for a very long time. The wet period ended around 10,000 years ago according to Boston University geologist Robert Schoch.


Schoch doesn't say that
The African Humid Period ended around 5,500 years ago - maybe a thousand years before the sphinx is traditionally believed to have been built, but at a time when people who may well have been capable of carving it were certainly living in the area.

Schoch estimated as age of 6-7,000 years for the sphinx.

Other authors have pushed that back to match their own particular theories, but there is no evidence that the Sphinx needs be more that 6,000 years old.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

I am done arguing with you

Stari,
Apparently, you aren't. Oookay...


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

But there are no 9,500 year old cities in Egypt. And there is no 10,500 year old city in or around Athens..


Um, I think that is not true. What about the dating of the Sphinx? It was built before Egypt went through its wet period where the Sphinx inclosure was full of water for a very long time. The wet period ended around 10,000 years ago according to Boston University geologist Robert Schoch.

Schoch has said the sphinx is dates back at least to 4750 BC, and maybe as early as 7,000 BC, possibly older. The sphinx was carved out of the limestone in situ, and that would not have required any great civilization to accomplish it. Could have been easily carved with flint tools. Limestone is very soft.
Besides, there are archaeological sites in Egypt that date that far back and farther. Also, Jericho has stonework that dates to 9000 BC. No sign of any powerful civilization anywhere at all, much less one that is advanced.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

Unfortunately, though this priest is supposedly talking to Solon sometime around 560 BC, a period from which a great many artifacts survive, no such deeds are recorded in any Egyptian histories ever found.


Once again, if Egypt went through a wet period and only ended in 10,000 then it stands to reason that hardly anything would be left of a civilization.

Yet here is an Egyptian, in or around 560 BC, sitting there telling Solon that such records not only exist, but that Egyptian history is filled with such recordings about the Athenians. What has that got to do with what was happening in 10,000 BC? Obviously, if the story was true, then these records did survive, at least up to the mid 500's BC, which was my point when I said that "many artifacts have survived from this period..." meaning that, surely the records in existence in 560, since they were "filled" with these references, would not have been completely obliterated over the last two thousand years, after surviving for 10,000 years.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

Secondly, I'm not twisting anything. It is you that is doing the twisting. We've gone from some geomagnetic flip 12, 000 years ago that geophysicists know nothing about, yet you somehow are completely informed on, through "well, what Plato meant was...", to you denying you said the following:



Now let's look at Atlantis. That was a time frame of perhaps 30 to 50 thousand years ago.


Scientists say that they believe, because it is all speculation, that the bottleneck ended around 10,000 years ago and they do not even know what started the bottleneck, I am speculating that it could have been due to the flip in the magnetic field. Sorry I didnt make that clearer.


Can you give any references for any of this? I've seen all the stuff on Atlantis, I'd like to know where you got your geomagnetic pole flip info, and the bottleneck info. As far as I'm aware, these events (they did not coincide) happened a hundred (and hundreds of) thousand(s of) years ago, not 10 or 15 thousand. Like I said before.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

There's nothing in Plato about this. You got it from one of the con artists who made it up, or you just made it up yourself. And then tried to tell me "I have never changed the timeline for which Plato states Atlantis existed." Who's twisting what around here?


I am saying here that Atlantis could have began around 50,000 years ago and then ended around the time frame of what Plato said. You are really twisting things here.. No one would think that Atlantis just came to be at 10,500 years ago and then poof gone in the same year. They were an old civilization. This is what I meant.


There is a multitude of archaeological artifacts dating from 50,000 BC forward. Why can't we find any Atlantean ones? Has anybody ever heard of any society that existed for even a thousand years, much less for 40,000 years? "Old civilization?" That's some understatement.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

Yes, you statred this thread. What of it? Stari, you don't get to pick and choose what opinions will be posted in threads at ATS. I'm not saying you have to come up with evidence. Just that if anyone has to, it's you. You are the one making the extreme claim here. I'm saying there's no evidence, I'm not required to prove that there's no evidence. If you don't agree with me, then all you have to do is provide some evidence and, BAM, I'm refuted, right?


I'm sorry, I am new to these boards, but I could have swarn that my welcome email from the moderators of these forums said to stick to the topics. Am I mistaken moderators?

Okay then, let me rephrase.
No, it's not possible that the Atlanteans came from another planet in our own (or any other) solar system. This is due to the fact that they sprang fully formed from the mind of a philosopher named Plato, and not from some ecosystem, the way we did.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

You may well be done arguing with me. But it remains my opinion that one should first at least attempt to establish the existence of Atlantis before attributing Atlantis to Martian immigrants.


That is because if it is mentioned then they are laughed out of sience from those who refuse to look at all the facts.

I assume here you meant to refer to what I said about "...the existence of Atlantis is hardly ever debated at all among people that actually do research in the fields you mention here. The subject absolutely almost never comes up."
Stari, you were the one who said "For me and alot of people who research into geology, archeology and anthropology it did exist. And it existed around 12,500 years ago. " Did you mean people that actually research these scientific fields? Or did you mean people that read Graham Hancock's books? The two things are not the same in the least. Hancock has as much as admitted that he misleads his readers and mischaracterises the few facts that he deigns to use. His justification? That this is what his "readership" is looking for and expect from him.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

Sorry, but I believe it is, as long as you include Plato (the only ancient source), who you forgot to mention. The list I give represents a fairly balanced view of both sides of this non-issue. What further studies would you recommend that might sway me more toward your way of thinking in this matter?


I am not here to sway anyones thoughts. I am here only to get input from those people who have done their homework and have come to the same conclusion as I have. You can think what ever you wish.

Hmmm. You imply that I haven't "done my homework." You say I need "to study geology, archeology and anthropology, then (I) may get a bigger picture of what happend in the world way back in the past." Yet when I ask you for it, you refuse to tell me where I can get my hands on all this secret knowledge that you have accessed which no scientist on Earth, no matter for how long he's "studied geology, archaeology and anthropology" is in on or privy to. Like I said, all you have to do is put up some evidence and BAM, I'm refuted.


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte

Well, at least you've realized the difference between "proof" and evidence. I rarely achieve even that much in such a trusting naive and easily misled Atlantis-head such as yourself.


Name calling.. wow, you are a low person to do that. I thought I was debating with a intelligent human.


What are you referring to here as "name calling"? Atlantis-head? I'm open to other terms.

Harte



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
From an earlier thread of mine regarding Atlantis... in the exerpt below from the Critias, Plato outlines what an Atlantian lord would be expected to provide for his country's military...



... and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships


This doesn't really sound to me like the kind of military that would be fielded by a civilization capable of inter-planetary travel.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Donner]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Another two cents from me.
The possibility of interplanetary travel by an earlier race is more than just a possibility, it could be seen as a credible fact. There is a movement that believes that area 51 and other associated sites like pine gap in Australia were not created by the government. Rather, it is believed that they were discovered and their walls contained technology way beyond ours. One of which is the design for the stealth bomber.



If this theory is correct then it could prove interplanetary travel was possible and also it will show how so many civilisations share a common injection of technology at approx. the same time.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
No, not from "another planet."

The folks speculating about Atlantis have usually never read Plato. Plato says that the Atlanteans and the Athenians (who at that time were living in huts and herding goats) got into a war and the Athenians defeated the Atlanteans.

Now ask yourself: how could the Athenian goat herders have beaten a spacefaring civilization?

Turned the goats loose on them?

Thrown rocks at them till they gave up?

Whacked at them with clubs till they fell over?

Got them all so drunk they couldn't stand and then tossed them into the Agean?

I think if you're going to speculate on Atlantis, you need to stop and read what PLATO said and not what people "channeled." What people have "channeled" is quite a lot of nonsense. Start with the original sources and then look for other sources that age.

But don't go running off to believe websites. People make this stuff up for the fun of fooling others or for impressing others with their "channeled" information.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   


What about the city of Troy? That was always believed to be myth but it is now indeed a fact! Scientists were called crazy and could loose all reputation for searching for the lost and fabled city of Troy.

Current opinions about the "rediscovery" of Troy are that the results are questionable and inconclusive, and that Heinrich Schliemann might have been doing a lot of wishful thinking. He discovered many layers of a buried city. But nobody knows if any of the layers are the same Troy referred to in the literature.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Oh yee of little faith!



What you have to realise is that there is no way to prove if the atlanteans even existed except for the writings of Plato. However, if we are to discredit their existence then would it not be wise to discredit all writings in times before recorded history. If so? tThen perhaps we should begin with the bible and other such texts, fable that is followed by the weak minded and followers of myth and heresay.

My point is that there is alot of disputing going on, disputing that will never be resolved. We can not prove that the atlanteans were from another planet, or that they were not. Regardless we must understand that the very chance that their origins are from a world other than our own should be embraced and perhaps alot more time and effort should be given to following chance rather than destroying it.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu


What about the city of Troy? That was always believed to be myth but it is now indeed a fact! Scientists were called crazy and could loose all reputation for searching for the lost and fabled city of Troy.

Current opinions about the "rediscovery" of Troy are that the results are questionable and inconclusive, and that Heinrich Schliemann might have been doing a lot of wishful thinking. He discovered many layers of a buried city. But nobody knows if any of the layers are the same Troy referred to in the literature.

True.

I should also add that Troy (unlike Atlantis) wasn't known from one single short mention in another work.

There was a lot of literature about Troy. At the yearly competitions of plays, playwrights who produced stories about Troy frequently took top prize. There were songs about Troy and there were drawings and sculptures of the heroes of Troy.

So there was a lot of anecdotal evidence that it DID exist in the first place or was at least a very important myth and was widely known by all the Greeks.

There is no such evidence about Atlantis. There's one mention in Plato (only) and that also mentions that the Athenians defeated them in war. But the Athenians themselves never mention it or have sculptures about it or even held festivals to commemorate it or temples to commemorate it.

This adds further weight to "it's a myth."



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Schoch doesn't say that
The African Humid Period ended around 5,500 years ago - maybe a thousand years before the sphinx is traditionally believed to have been built, but at a time when people who may well have been capable of carving it were certainly living in the area.

Schoch estimated as age of 6-7,000 years for the sphinx.

Other authors have pushed that back to match their own particular theories, but there is no evidence that the Sphinx needs be more that 6,000 years old.


To quote Dr. Schoch,

"Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago."

The link to this article is on Dr. Schoch's website located at:
www.robertschoch.net...

The last sentence there states that the initial carving of the great sphinx may be even earlier than 9 thousand years ago. I'm not saying it was carved from Atlanteans, but maybe from what Plato calles Athenians. Plato stated in the beginning of Critias that the names of the Atlanteans were lost in time so he would give the people for which his story told of familiar names. Maybe that is why he called them Athenians. And maybe they were the builders of the sphinx.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Harte, I am not going to quote you. I am going to reply to your post without having a bunch of quoted text for readers to reread.

For your mention of Dr. Schoch, please read my post to Essan.

I am assuming if these records did exist then they would have been really precious documents of history. It would have been in the library of alexander or maybe kept safely else where. Just because they have not been found yet does not mean that they do not exist.

And about the pole flips and bottleneck info, I will refer you back to my post on page

www.abovetopsecret.com... at the very top of the page. You did quote me on that post.. didn't you read it?

Thank you Harte for making my point for me. You are right when you said that there are artifacts going back at least to 50,000 years ago. Because of this one might be able to conclude that civilizations did survive way back then. Maybe even farther back in time. Only archeology will prove that.

I am not saying that Atlantis undeniably existed, I am saying that my research into all of the fields listed in your above post can lead people who study those fields to believe that the possibility of a civilization could have existed and ended 10,500 years ago. Like I have already stated in a previous post, it will not be proven until it is dug up from underground. I also gave my opinion of where I believe Atlantis once existed, the Caribbean Sea.

You say I do not give my references to around 10 to 15 years worth of watching documentaries on TV, going through science website on the internet and reading tons of news articles on all aspects of science. I can say that I have saved some of my earlier findings.. I printed hard copies and found that I was going through tons of ink and printer paper and decided that I would just book mark news articles of interest. I am currently on my fourth computer since then, i'm sure most can understand how computers can crash. I have though finally gotten to a point where I back up my favorites quite often so that I do not lose important articles. This is what I meant by doing your homework. You are wanting me to provide you with proof of what I am saying, well what I know of from articles I have read for many years could have been proven wrong or even proven more so right. I could have missed important information that could have come out years later. What I am trying to say is, while I have spent most of my adult life studing the sciences that I believe will be the only way to prove that Atlantis "COULD" have existed, does not mean that I have references to every single article that I have read in the past 10 to 15 years. I had to even do a search on the bottleneck and pole flip articles just so that you could read them Harte, why couldn't you have done that instead of bulling me for references. I'm sorry for being snotty to you but it was an instinct. Sort of like if someone comes up to you and punches you in the arm, now I know I would not stand there and take it.. I would hall off and belt him or her back as hard as I could.. hehehe Well I would. So, when you made me feel like I had to do your research and search for the bottleneck info and the pole flip info just to prove myself instead of doing your own home work, I guess I wasn't very happy. Instead of saying, well Stari that has been proven inaccurate and this is where you can find that info, you challenged me like a bully.

You say that all I have to do is put up some evidence and bam your refuted, but when I did put up links leading you to the research on the bottleneck and magnetic pole flips you ignored them and still insisted that I needed to put more evidence up for you. No more Harte. You do the searches this time. And if you find evidence that refutes my words then please post the links to the evidence here.

Like I said earlier, I have been doing this for many years now and what I have read when I first started out could have since been found to be inaccurate. If anyone who reads these posts finds me saying something inaccurate and can lead me to the correct info then I really would appreciate a link to the new information.

And I believe the name you used was and I will quote you "trusting naive and easily misled Atlantis-head such as yourself." Not just Atlantis-head.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donner


... and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships


This doesn't really sound to me like the kind of military that would be fielded by a civilization capable of inter-planetary travel.


We have no way of knowing if they really came from another planet. I am putting this question out there to get peoples opinions on this question.

My thoughts are that if they did come from Mars then we have no way of knowing what would have made them leave there planet other than it became uninhabitable. Did they have to leave in a hurry? Or did they have time to plan the move? There would be no way of knowing unless those lost texts, that Harte has so nicely reminded us of, are found.

Perhaps if Atlantis had started on Mars maybe just one scientist new of the impending doom of thier planet and his peers ignored him because there was no proof or evidence that they could except. So this one scientist took his family and some how made a ship to travel here and start a new life. He would have started from scratch. Maybe even using his ship to build a shelter.

Ok, it is just a thought.. what does everyone think about that? Is it even feasable?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by identitynone

The possibility of interplanetary travel by an earlier race is more than just a possibility, it could be seen as a credible fact. There is a movement that believes that area 51 and other associated sites like pine gap in Australia were not created by the government. Rather, it is believed that they were discovered and their walls contained technology way beyond ours. One of which is the design for the stealth bomber.


Is there a website with credible information on this?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Current opinions about the "rediscovery" of Troy are that the results are questionable and inconclusive, and that Heinrich Schliemann might have been doing a lot of wishful thinking. He discovered many layers of a buried city. But nobody knows if any of the layers are the same Troy referred to in the literature.


Ok, I do know that ancient civilizations had to rebuild their cities because this planet has gone through many natural disasters. What I never understood is why did they rebuild on top of the old city. Anyhow... I did not know that "they?" do not believe it is the lost city of Troy. I will have to do more research into this. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Recent archeoglogy finds suggest the proof of the existence of the Atlantis, located off the coast of Greece, an isolated island with quite developed civilization built upon it. The island was devasted by a volcanic erruption on the island and the cities sank under the sea. Over the years the legend has been mythified to a LIVING city on the bottom of the ocean, when the actual fact is it was just another lost civilization due to the wraith of Mother Nature.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
To quote Dr. Schoch,
"Based on either this chain of reasoning, or the scenario suggested immediately above-and given that the weathering of the limestone floor of the Sphinx enclosure is fifty to 100 percent deeper on the front and sides of the figure than at its rear-we can estimate that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx (i.e., the carving of the main portion of the body and the front end) may have been carried out ca. 7000 to 5000 B.C. (in other words, that the carving of the core body of the figure is approximately fifty to 100 percent older than ca. 2500 B.C.). This tentative estimate is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is "protected' by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago."

The link to this article is on Dr. Schoch's website located at:
www.robertschoch.net...


If you'll read what Schoch says, all of it, you'll see that the weathering he's talking about on the floor of the Sphinx enclosure does not involve water in any form. It's related to exposure to the air.

Also, I want to reiterate that carving limestone can be accomplished with stoneage tools and requires no advanced civilization, indeed, no civilization of any kind. Only a group of people.


Originally posted by StariThe last sentence there states that the initial carving of the great sphinx may be even earlier than 9 thousand years ago. I'm not saying it was carved from Atlanteans, but maybe from what Plato calles Athenians. Plato stated in the beginning of Critias that the names of the Atlanteans were lost in time so he would give the people for which his story told of familiar names. Maybe that is why he called them Athenians. And maybe they were the builders of the sphinx.


This is not so. These names were not lost, and Plato was definitely referring to the Athenians that lived in Greece, right where his own Athens was located, even though there were no such people.
From the Critias:


And this is reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions. This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus


What I believe you are referring to is that, according to Plato, Solon changed a lot of the ancient names to Greek names in his narrative (which narrative I assert never existed.)


Originally posted by Stari
I am assuming if these records did exist then they would have been really precious documents of history. It would have been in the library of alexander or maybe kept safely else where. Just because they have not been found yet does not mean that they do not exist.

True, but you really shouldn't base any archaeological theory on evidence that hasn't been found "yet."


Originally posted by StariAnd about the pole flips and bottleneck info, I will refer you back to my post on page

www.abovetopsecret.com... at the very top of the page. You did quote me on that post.. didn't you read it?

I had to even do a search on the bottleneck and pole flip articles just so that you could read them Harte, why couldn't you have done that instead of bulling me for references. I'm sorry for being snotty to you but it was an instinct. Sort of like if someone comes up to you and punches you in the arm, now I know I would not stand there and take it.. I would hall off and belt him or her back as hard as I could.. hehehe Well I would. So, when you made me feel like I had to do your research and search for the bottleneck info and the pole flip info just to prove myself instead of doing your own home work, I guess I wasn't very happy. Instead of saying, well Stari that has been proven inaccurate and this is where you can find that info, you challenged me like a bully.

You say that all I have to do is put up some evidence and bam your refuted, but when I did put up links leading you to the research on the bottleneck and magnetic pole flips you ignored them and still insisted that I needed to put more evidence up for you. No more Harte. You do the searches this time. And if you find evidence that refutes my words then please post the links to the evidence here.


Like I told you, I've read every theory there is to read on Atlantis. The only sources I requested had to do with the pole flip and the bottleneck, I don't need your sources on Atlantis. If your original link is all you have on the pole flip, I'm sorry but that information doesn't even relate to any pole flip at all. It's talking about the precession of the Earth's axis, which has nothing at all to do with any pole flip, geographic or geomagnetic. And I already told you this in my response following that post. I gave you a link to a reputable science website in my response, informing you that the last geomagnetic pole "flip" happened nearly 800,000 years ago. Did you ignore it? Here it is again - www.physorg.com... If I had not already "done the searches" (just exactly as I said I had,) then how could I have put this scientific evidence in my response two pages back?

From your source on the bottleneck:


Dating a perceived bottleneck is largely a question of searching through time for a possible cause and then trying to determine whether the available evidence fits the suspected cause. This is largely what has been done with the Toba YTT event which actually fits surprisingly well and so has a relatively high probability of actually being true. There is no other possible cause in sight but of course, there cannot ever be absolute certainty - there never is in studies of the past...

First thought 35,000 years old because of contaminated C14 measurements on wood samples found under the ash, the ash has now been re-dated in 1978 ( ref. Ninkovich D. et al., 1978) with volcanological methods and unambiguousoly assigned to the Toba YTT event of 73,000 years ago.

Since that author gives an estimate of around 10,000 years for the duration of this theorized bottleneck, that puts humanity's recovery at around 65,000 BC. In what way is this around the time of Atlantis? Of course, the time period this researcher proposes is more recent other theories I had read (I believe I stated 100,000 years ago,) but here's what you said:


Scientists say that they believe, because it is all speculation, that the bottleneck ended around 10,000 years ago and they do not even know what started the bottleneck

and:


These population bottleneck times did not occure during our 12,000 yr time frame for Atlantis, but it does seem to have ended during this time frame.


Sorry if providing some info on your version of the population bottleneck was too much trouble. This subject was being discussed in another thread here at ATS, by the way.


Originally posted by Stari
And I believe the name you used was and I will quote you "trusting naive and easily misled Atlantis-head such as yourself." Not just Atlantis-head.

Trusting, naive and easily misled are adjectives I selected based on your posts. I based these descriptive terms on the following:

"Naive" (and "trusting", aproximately the same thing):
Based on your apparent decision to take as the truth on pure faith anything Graham Hancock tells you.

"Easily misled":
See above.

The actual name-calling was the "Atlantis Head" part. Like I said, I'm open to other terms.
I fail to see how you could find any part of this description offensive.

Before:

Originally posted by Stari
There is enough proof to state that Atlantis really existed,

After:

Originally posted by StariI am not saying that Atlantis
undeniably existed

But you are making progress.


Harte

[edit on 2/27/2006 by Harte]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I hear you friend, I believe in Atlantis too. it will rise again when the next polar shift comes our way. Anyways, I think that they have come from a different planet possibly...but who knows. Maybe they were the proyconians..or...maybe they were with some other breed of some sort. i haven't done enough research on that subject. Good post



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

If you'll read what Schoch says, all of it, you'll see that the weathering he's talking about on the floor of the Sphinx enclosure does not involve water in any form. It's related to exposure to the air..


Well as you say if you read the entire page then you would also know that the sphinx was not carved all at the same time. Plus I never said that Atlanteans carved the sphinx. But some civilization did that possibly lived back in the same time frame of Atlantis.


Originally posted by Harte

This is not so. These names were not lost, and Plato was definitely referring to the Athenians that lived in Greece, right where his own Athens was located, even though there were no such people.
From the Critias:

And this is reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions. This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus


What I believe you are referring to is that, according to Plato, Solon changed a lot of the ancient names to Greek names in his narrative (which narrative I assert never existed.)


You are right there Harte. I dug out my papers that I printed along time ago of Critias and Timaeus and took it to work and read critias during my breaks. I definately had it backwards. I also read something you may wish to hear.. or perhaps the readers and posters of this thread would like to know. You keep saying there is no writen records of Atlantis anywhere.. only Plato, well after rereading critias yesterday and today I found the reason why this is so.


plato

For when there were any survivors, as I have already said, they were men who dwelt in the mountains; and they were ignorant of the art of writing, and had heard only the names of the chiefs of the land, but very little about their actions.


So anyhow this is why there are no written acknowledgments of Atlantis other than when Plato decided it was time to write it down. The rest of that paragraph goes on to speak about how they had to supply for their needs and did not have the luxury to spend time on their wants let alone time to figure out a writting system and write the story down. After Atlantis sunk there was a lot of hardships trying to survive.


Originally posted by Harte

Like I told you, I've read every theory there is to read on Atlantis. The only sources I requested had to do with the pole flip and the bottleneck, I don't need your sources on Atlantis. If your original link is all you have on the pole flip, I'm sorry but that information doesn't even relate to any pole flip at all.


That is not the only source, it was my way of starting you off on finding your own information.


Originally posted by Harte
Sorry if providing some info on your version of the population bottleneck was too much trouble. This subject was being discussed in another thread here at ATS, by the way.


Really? can you supply the link of the thread where people are speculating whether or not Atlanteans came from another planet in our solar system or beyond?



"Naive" (and "trusting", aproximately the same thing):
Based on your apparent decision to take as the truth on pure faith anything Graham Hancock tells you.


Actually I bought my first Graham Hancock book in November of 2005 and just finished it last month. I have been researching different avenues of science now for almost 15 years now. So now I need to ask you.


Originally posted by Harte
"Easily misled":


Who is???????????????????

Atlantis to me did exist. I have to admit until the main city is actually found though I have to for people like you say it is still a question. Keep researching Harte.. there is still hope for you



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitelightwolf
I believe in Atlantis too. it will rise again when the next polar shift comes our way.


It may rise, but it will need to be dug out. At least that is my theory.

So Whitelight, do you believe that Atlanteans came from another world other than this one?



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   


That particular wording for the search returned a mere 47,200 website hits.

Harte



Must be more important news now then Harte... I just got this

Results 1 - 10 of about 85,500 for Cuba ancient sunken city. (0.35 seconds)


Okay As to Altlantis there are manuscripts hidden in Tibetian lamasaries[sp?] that prove they came from a planet in the solar system. But it wasn't Mars. There was a massive war. Three planets involved... the tektites found in earth deserts are a result of blasts, the atmosphere of Mars stripped away and the third planet disintegrated and became the asteroid belt.

A large piece of the planet passed close to earth and ripped out a chunk of the pacific ocean which became our moon, and caused the ring of fire that we now have. The sun stood still in the heavens for a moment, because of the tug on earth as it was moved slightly further out from the sun into new orbit... global flooding resulted [I like that Noah's Ark was a spaceship idea... never heard it before, but it fits]

On the next orbital pass, the moon and earth plowed thru more of the debris field which is why the moon has craters only on one side. The rest of the debris imoved into what is now the asteroid belt.

There is a lot more , but that ought to stir up the pot a little.

Proof? Do I need it here? Why? No one else has any


Source?

Read T. Lobsang Rampa... there is a very concice description of how it happened and where the scrolls are kept.

See if you can contact the Secret Society known as the Rosicrucian... ask them [not easy here though]

The bible mentions many of these events, only not in sequence... but then it too was only written by man

Maybe when I have some idle time I will develop this theory on my website, but for now you will have to google this. What you want me to do all the work for you?


Besides all this messes with my pet theory, which I have a thread on already

STAR GATE IS THE TRUTH


Disclaimer [So I don't get called names by the scholars]
I make no claims to the veracity of this, just my opinion and theory

OH almost forgot!! As to the moon ripped out of the earth? Discovery channel did that one
Only they have the large chunk of planet suddenly turning around and making a second pass. It was fine until then... they made no explanation about how and why it would have reversed direction.


[edit on 26-6-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
its funny really. doesnt anybody know?, ancient temples and monuments (and even just stone formations) are found all over the world and are in conjunction with the stars and planets.sto

now forgive me if im wrong, but most of these special historic places tell stories of cycles (proven time cycles where not just the earthly climates change, but also the universal climate aswell)So our ancestors who started in small tribes dotted around the world were all recording both climates . They were the watchers, and they saw the giant clock or universal calander ticking, and unravelling all around them. There came a short period of time when the remaining species from a planet which was hit by Planet X(The Profit Of Doom) came to our Earth and peacefully integrated with the ancient tribes and shamans and taught them secrets of time and space, magic and that of other cosmic dimensions. Told them about the Earth, that they should love and take care of the lush landscapes and fresh air, and also that the inevitability of Karmic Cycles is the process ofour spirits journey for enlightenment. You must find realization. And seporation is will take place at the end and that there is always seeds for the next cycle. Everything is energy, effecting all that is.

We are living on a world which is preparing for the final climax, why cant everyone work together to piece the puzzle which was stared but was never finshed?
Because it is our destiny to find out as singular spiritual beings what Infinate peace bliss conscious energy is, and to realize LOVE.
But there is Good and Evil amongst the tired ages of man, and forever there will be.

The Profit of Doom
Look to the northern sky the day the antichrist dies.
You shall see the fate of the most, and the sounds of sour lies.
Maybe youll realize by then.

Jay



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join