Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Some Comments About Recent Speculation On Atlantis

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I have been posting here for a while now and I am always drug back here because of the intelligence of the posters. However, there is a trend on the subject of Atlantis that bothers me somewhat.

The last couple of times I have been here I have noticed, somewhat to my dismay, that some posters are entertaining the idea that Atlantis was a PLANET !!! Now, for everyone's information I think a person is entitled to believe whatever they wish. However, I, as an informed individual am also entitled to give my opinion on his/her assumptions.

Now,I am not intending to get into the whole philosophical ponderings of Atlantis; I just want to make a comment or two directed towards a trend I view as somewhat intellectually dishonest.

First, if Atlantis were a planet, I seriously doubt that Plato would have spoke of it as a "city-nation". In order for atlantis to have been a planet, one would have to assume that Plato was either an ancient astronaut or he went on a spiritual journey through space and time to view Atlantis. I don't think either is true. I believe Atlantis, just like Plato described it, was a "city-nation" right here on earth.

Some may ask...so where is this "city-nation" then? Under the waters of Bimini most likely. However, there are theories that much of what we call the U.S of A is part of the lost continent of Atlantis. I would come much closer to believing that than I would to believing that Atlantis was a planet. It seems rather preposterous, no offense to anyone, to me.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

All caps removed from title.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by worldwatcher]




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
First, if Atlantis were a planet, I seriously doubt that Plato would have spoke of it as a "city-nation". In order for atlantis to have been a planet, one would have to assume that Plato was either an ancient astronaut or he went on a spiritual journey through space and time to view Atlantis.


I agree that what you say makes excellent sense, and I agree that Plato spoke of Atlantis as if it had a place on Earth beyond the Pillars of Hercules and that a city state sounds very much like what we know here on this planet.

But, what you said in the quote above prompted me to dig up something interesting in relation to the 'ancient astronaut' comment.

Please read this and wonder, like me, just how Plato knew...


The tale, my friend, he said, is as follows: In the first place, the earth, when looked at from above, is like one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is of divers colors, of which the colors which painters use on earth are only a sample. But there the whole earth is made up of them, and they are brighter far and clearer than ours; there is a purple of wonderful luster, also the radiance of gold, and the white which is in the earth is whiter than any chalk or snow. Of these and other colors the earth is made up, and they are more in number and fairer than the eye of man has ever seen; and the very hollows (of which I was speaking) filled with air and water are seen like light flashing amid the other colors, and have a color of their own, which gives a sort of unity to the variety of earth.

www.constitution.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

The tale, my friend, he said, is as follows: In the first place, the earth, when looked at from above, is like one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is of divers colors, of which the colors which painters use on earth are only a sample. But there the whole earth is made up of them, and they are brighter far and clearer than ours; there is a purple of wonderful luster, also the radiance of gold, and the white which is in the earth is whiter than any chalk or snow. Of these and other colors the earth is made up, and they are more in number and fairer than the eye of man has ever seen; and the very hollows (of which I was speaking) filled with air and water are seen like light flashing amid the other colors, and have a color of their own, which gives a sort of unity to the variety of earth.

www.constitution.org...




Yeah....that is one of the ancient puzzles.. I am in no way trying to debunk the ancient astronaut theory but I seriously doubt that Plato was one of them. As a matter of fact, I tend to believe that the ancients were much more sophisticated than we give them credit for.

However, if one is going to argue that Plato was an astronaut, then one must presume that he visited other places as well. No? If he did, where are the writings about these voyages he went on?

The Sumerians also knew alot about our solar system that we just relatively recently found out. For example, the Sumerians were aware of the existence of Pluto...so,yeah, there are some indications that ancient astronautics is a fact....However,I personally do not think Plato was in their ranks.
~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - fixed quote


[edit on 6-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Sumerians also knew alot about our solar system that we just relatively recently found out. For example, the Sumerians were aware of the existence of Pluto.


Could you point to a table that lists the COMPLETE list of planets in Sumerian? And references to the document that it came from... one that shows they knew of planets to Pluto and possibly beyond?

Meanwhile, here's a list of planet names in both ancient and modern languages. Sumerian, Babylonian, and Sanskrit (another ancient written language) are near the bottom: www.nineplanets.org...

...and a PDF of an article from a journal of folklore (very nice article) associating gods with planets:
www.folklore.ee...=%22sumerian%20planet%20names%22

So there's my proof, in the words of the people themselves, that they didn't know Pluto or Neptune or Uranus or any other planets beyond Saturn.

Do you have any proof that these articles are wrong? If so, present the full list of planets and sources.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   


Do you have any proof that these articles are wrong? If so, present the full list of planets and sources.


its often said that the sumerian only knew of five planets but in fact they really knew of 6
the list you posted Byrd doesn't mention the one they actually lived on


crystal links on this subject is interesting


The Sumerians of Babylon were probably the first people to make a calendar

www.crystalinks.com...
I didn't say it was correct


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Sumerians also knew alot about our solar system that we just relatively recently found out. For example, the Sumerians were aware of the existence of Pluto.


Could you point to a table that lists the COMPLETE list of planets in Sumerian? And references to the document that it came from... one that shows they knew of planets to Pluto and possibly beyond?

Meanwhile, here's a list of planet names in both ancient and modern languages. Sumerian, Babylonian, and Sanskrit (another ancient written language) are near the bottom: www.nineplanets.org...

...and a PDF of an article from a journal of folklore (very nice article) associating gods with planets:
www.folklore.ee...=%22sumerian%20planet%20names%22

So there's my proof, in the words of the people themselves, that they didn't know Pluto or Neptune or Uranus or any other planets beyond Saturn.

Do you have any proof that these articles are wrong? If so, present the full list of planets and sources.


www.sumerian.org...

www.pureinsight.org...

There is more information where that came from. Never sell the ancients short. They knew many things that we, as great as we THINK we are, are only now beginning to find out.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   


There is more information where that came from. Never sell the ancients short. They knew many things that we, as great as we THINK we are, are only now beginning to find out.

apparently you are selling something that has no market
neither of those links you posted say the sumerians knew anything more than five planets
the first link is strictly orthodox and the second link although speaking basically a load of crap doesnt say anything about how mnay planets the sumerians knew about
the only person who actually claims that is Zechariah Sitchin
and you can see how much he knows about the sumerians here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
i.e. nothing



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
www.sumerian.org...


...which restates my point that they didn't know about the outer planets and that they didn't have any unusual knowledge.


www.pureinsight.org...


...which says they had accurate calendars and knew (as did many cultures) about precession of the equinoxes (none of this is news to me -- I had done some study on their calendars and astronomical knowledge.) But not that they knew of the outer planets.


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This thread is kind of straying away from its intended purpose. It was meant to discuss the silliness of contemplating Atlantis as a planet. It's not really a discussion of ancient technology or, perhaps, the lack thereof. I only have one question for the nay sayers of ancient technology and then I will say no more about it. If we are so far ahead of the ancients in "knowledge" why is it that we, with all of our "superior" technology cannot reconstruct the pyramids with the precision that the ancients built them the first time?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Meanwhile, here's a list of planet names in both ancient and modern languages. Sumerian, Babylonian, and Sanskrit (another ancient written language) are near the bottom: www.nineplanets.org...

...and a PDF of an article from a journal of folklore (very nice article) associating gods with planets:
www.folklore.ee...=%22sumerian%20planet%20names%22

So there's my proof, in the words of the people themselves, that they didn't know Pluto or Neptune or Uranus or any other planets beyond Saturn.


Byrd, whilst not wanting to get into a debate with you over this, I have a question. You summise that the Sumerians or whoever did not know about something because they had no word for it. In that instance and using this table you provided, are you asking us to believe that the Uzbeks, Tamils, Swahili (all people who are around and speaking their languages today) or whoever do not know about Pluto because they do not have a name for it?

I find it odd that you should use such "evidence", considering that for those that "are aware" of Pluto, call it Pluto, regardless of the language.

Also, using your table, one could summise that the ancient Romans or the Greeks were aware of Pluto because the word is listed in the table. The evidence you provide is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be and is, in my opinion, quite useless for the purpose your intending it be used for.

Also, considering that ancient languages are not fully comprehended anyway (any claim to the contrary would be absurd, considering the debates that surround interpretaions), how can you convincingly use this as "evidence", just because we are not aware they had a word for it?

It is frustrating in these forums when you come and slap some theory down because academia doesn't accept it, then back it up with a rather flakey piece of evidence that is quite obviously not written for the purpose your using it. Are we to assume, that because academia doesn't accept something, then it is wrong? Based on that, we'd get no where.

For example, Black Holes, until recently, were just theoretical and not long before that, many scientists didn't believe they existed at all.

Surely the purpose of science is to test theories and expand knowledge, not become bogged down in a territorial "I'm right, your not" stalemate where new ideas are slapped down because they do not conform with orthodox views?

[edit on 7/9/06 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
the Babylonians and the Akkadians before them had no knowledge of the outer planets
their knowledge was derived from the Sumerians 3who also had no knowledge of the outer planets
the Sumerians named the planets that they knew about and quite clearly didn't know about the outer ones
and we do understand Sumerian properly
if you are having trouble believing the actual truth about Sumer then i suggest you visit this online Sumerian dictionary
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
we have been capable of reading this language for over 100 years now
No qualifed person in sumerology has ever claimed anything remotely resembling advanced astronomical knowledge for them
and considering that they didn't have any telescopes it would be impossible for them to know anyway
we only know about the outer planets because we have qualified astronomers and decent observatories to discover them with
the sumerians had neither
you can't start off studying a civilisation and claiming that they know everything we do and then knock things off the list wehn you find out they didn't know about it
in that case the romans had nuclear power but kept it a secret and never wrote about it



and if you're thinking aliens told them then you have to prove it
and there just isn't any evidence of that at all



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

It is frustrating in these forums when you come and slap some theory down because academia doesn't accept it, then back it up with a rather flakey piece of evidence that is quite obviously not written for the purpose your using it. Are we to assume, that because academia doesn't accept something, then it is wrong? Based on that, we'd get no where.

For example, Black Holes, until recently, were just theoretical and not long before that, many scientists didn't believe they existed at all.

Surely the purpose of science is to test theories and expand knowledge, not become bogged down in a territorial "I'm right, your not" stalemate where new ideas are slapped down because they do not conform with orthodox views?

[edit on 7/9/06 by stumason]


Yeah,but that's the status quo,not only on this forum but most. If it's not upheld by the "intellegentsia" then it must not be correct,according to some. I think that line of thinking is codswallop, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a number. Right?


[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
If we are so far ahead of the ancients in "knowledge" why is it that we, with all of our "superior" technology cannot reconstruct the pyramids with the precision that the ancients built them the first time?


The only thing preventing us from building a pyramid today, identical to those at Giza, is the cost. Much as the same reason as why we don't built huge medieval castles or gothic cathedrals anymore.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Originally posted by Essan

The only thing preventing us from building a pyramid today, identical to those at Giza, is the cost. Much as the same reason as why we don't built huge medieval castles or gothic cathedrals anymore.


That's the first time I've ever heard that. Regardless, if one wants to really examine the pyramids of ancient egypt, one quickly finds that the stones were so precisely placed that you cannot even fit a razor blade between the stones. If we are capable of such a feat, I have yet to see the building or monument where it was done. *SHRUG*

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Here is a link to a new book that is coming out on Atlantis for those who are weary of the search for Atlantis. I think people should look for an acceptable explanation for Atlantis rather than a theory that "Oh, Atlantis was a planet," or "It was just an allegorical story to get a point across." I think one of those theories is about as ridiciulous as the other. Atlantis was an actual place but we have been searching for it in the wrong areas. Here, go to this link:

www.atlan.org...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
this book was released a year ago
and not surprisingly
it sank without trace like its namesake


he claims to have found a sunken continent which matches all of Platos details except of course that it took hundreds of years to submerge and in fact did so about 30,000 years ago
he also claims to be the first person to suggest this area when in fact hes just one of many

more smoke from the fire imo



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
this book was released a year ago
and not surprisingly
it sank without trace like its namesake


he claims to have found a sunken continent which matches all of Platos details except of course that it took hundreds of years to submerge and in fact did so about 30,000 years ago
he also claims to be the first person to suggest this area when in fact hes just one of many

more smoke from the fire imo


I don't think you,nor anyone else for that matter, is really catching my drift. It is rather beyond the point of ridiculousness to suggest that just because Atlantis has not been found, YET, that it must have been on some other planet...yada, yada. I am simply stating that just because it hasn't been found ON earth does not mean it's not here.

We can go around and around all day "debunking" theories if you want to...."debunking" does little, other than to show it just hasn't happened yet. It certainly isn't a prerequisite of anything.

When one examines how much of our earth is still relatively uncharted territory it stands to reason as to why many things haven't been solved. It always has seemed rather ironic to me that we spend billions and billions of dollars on space travel every year, when we are not even aware of everything that is on earth. Rather ironic,indeed.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Originally posted by Essan

The only thing preventing us from building a pyramid today, identical to those at Giza, is the cost. Much as the same reason as why we don't built huge medieval castles or gothic cathedrals anymore.


That's the first time I've ever heard that.


Speaker,

I find that not the least bit surprising. The only people that need to compare today's technology to that of Ancient Egypt are the people trying to make a buck passing off these crazy "The aliens did it" pseudoarchaeological collections of half-baked innuendo and misrepresentations of serious researchers' discoveries in thier "Alternat History" fantasies.

Why would any archaeologist or Egyptologist need to ever state the fact that Essan so eloquently enunciated?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Regardless, if one wants to really examine the pyramids of ancient egypt, one quickly finds that the stones were so precisely placed that you cannot even fit a razor blade between the stones. If we are capable of such a feat, I have yet to see the building or monument where it was done. *SHRUG*

Stone placement "so precise that a razor blade cannot be place between them" is not as hard to accomplish as you might think when you realize that only the exposed surfaces need be so precise, and that such precise placement actually is fairly rare in any Egyptian pyramid, when considered in terms of how many exposed stone faces there are. That is, far more exposed stone is not placed this precisely than is.


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
When one examines how much of our earth is still relatively uncharted territory it stands to reason as to why many things haven't been solved. It always has seemed rather ironic to me that we spend billions and billions of dollars on space travel every year, when we are not even aware of everything that is on earth. Rather ironic,indeed.


Even more ironic is when people make statements like the above without even considering the information about Earth itself which has been gleaned from studying our planet from space. In fact, without space travel, we would today know far, far less about Earth than we actually do; Archaeologically, Geologically, Oceanographically, Meteorologically, Ecologically, Environmentally and even Geographically.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
To be fair to Speaker though, his purpose for starting this thread is quite correct: it is indeed ridiculous and illogical to argue that, because we haven't found Atlantis on Earth, then it must be on another planet. By the same token, Shangri La and King Arthur's burial place are also on other planets ...... along with the last piece of that 5,000 jigsaw you spent last summer putting together!



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
To be fair to Speaker though, his purpose for starting this thread is quite correct: it is indeed ridiculous and illogical to argue that, because we haven't found Atlantis on Earth, then it must be on another planet.



Thank you, at least someone gets it!!!





new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join