The 'Lost Civilisation' - Compelling Evidence, page 2

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Hello Skyfloating,

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

I am not going to name names - livelihoods involved here.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

damn, now you really got me interested, . How bout you U2U me , lol.



[edit on 24-10-2007 by luis9343]

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

You got my attention too - I cant wait to read it.

reply to post by JbT

---

Hello JbT,

Again, thanks for your post.

I really think your onto something here and implore you to keep up your great work.

SC: Absolutely! Keep a close eye on my Forum. In the not too distant future I shall be presenting additional information concerning the Great Pyramid which I think you may also find of some interest.

Best wishes,

SC

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your post.

Scott lets be honest here, they laughed

SC: And the Pope laughed at the astronomer! Not everyone was so dismissive of my ideas, Hans, and you do yourself a great disservice by attempting to make it appear so.

www.hallofmaat.com...,431435,432049#msg-432049
www.hallofmaat.com...,451249,451624#msg-451624

Hans: Remember the great deadly weakness of your idea - it requires an advanced civilization (probably more advanced than ours) for which no evidence exists...

SC: Hardly deadly, Hans. And who ever said such a civilisation would ‘probably [be] more advanced than ours’? Please – try and keep things in perspective.

Consider the Illiad, a poem composed by the mythical Homer (or Homeric), telling us of a ‘mythical’ Troy. Yes – just a myth in a similar way to Plato’s Critias and Timaeus dialogues tell us of a ‘mythical’ Atlantis. Do you still consider Troy and the Trojans a myth, Hans? It seems that these so-called myths and legends – more often than not – have their roots in fact. Do not dismiss Plato just because you consider his writings as philosophical ramblings. He attributed the words concerning Atlantis to Solon – an ancient Egyptian priest we know existed. Why would Plato even consider defaming Solon’s name by attributing to him the Atlantis story, saying that it was ‘true history’ when all along Plato apparently knew it to be a lie? Why would Plato defame Solon – a priest – in such a way? It is more likely that Solon did indeed tell the Atlantis story and Plato did indeed recall it as ‘true history’. It is highly improbable that Plato would besmirch a priest in this way. In addition, I think it is far better to convey true events to convey one’s particular philosophical ideas. So, Plato tells us a former high civilisation existed but was lost. I have no reason to doubt Plato’s word , nor indeed, that of Socrates.

Hans:: Oh and on your other question, others oppose your idea because that is what academics and learned people do - they discuss and share ideas, that your idea is wrong in most people's mind who have an indepth knowledge of the subject, means they don't accept it.

SC: Hans – I did not take my work to your so-called ‘learned people’ to have them accept it. I am not so naive. I well understand the initial reaction radical new ideas have on the ‘establishment’.

The ‘learned people’ and academics you speak of did not even know the concavities of Khufu and Menkaure existed, let alone understood their function, until I came along and explained it to them.

These ‘learned people’ cannot offer a plausible reason for the missing Queens of Khafre, a Pharaoh who had more Queens than the other two Pharaohs at Giza put together. My work offers a simple, logical and consistent reason for this.

Your ‘learned people’ still do not understand why the roof of the King’s Chamber is so elevated with the relieving chambers. I offer a very logical reason for this.

Your ‘learned people’ still do not know if Khufu’s pyramidion was ever in place or was stolen. My work shows that it was never in place – and explains why.

Your ‘learned people’ cannot offer a logical reason for the Great Sphinx. My work does exactly this.

Your ‘learned people’ are still stuck with Victorian ideas of the pyramids at Giza, classifying them ast King’s, Queens and cults. This is patently WRONG. They should be classified in terms of their size for this underpins their associations and functions

Your ‘learned people’ cannot explain why there are no inscriptions of any significance inside or outside the Gizamids. My theory explains this logically and consistently.

Your ‘learned people’ do not understand why the pyramid of Menkaure is so unique – indeed, they even fail to recognise this uniqueness exists or has any significance. My theory shows exactly why Menkaure’s pyramid is so unique.

More...

reply to post by Hanslune

---

From Previous.

In short, Hans, your ‘learned people’ only know what they know. I offer possible answers to those things they don’t know. I may indeed be wrong but if my work at least pushes the boundaries of possibilities, then my work is done.

Hans: Basically you need to find that lost civilization before anyone will begin to take your idea seriously.

SC: If by this you mean finding the pot with ‘Made in Atlantis’ stamped on the base then I’m afraid you will probably have a long wait. Where we now have land was once sea, and sea was once land. We may never find their artefacts, Hans, but at Giza we undoubtedly see their mind! If we cannot credit the AEs with the advanced mathematical and astronomical knowledge that is clearly on display at Giza then we have to consider that the knowledge came from another time and civilisation – just as the AEs themselves tell us.

Hans: Oh and kudos for sharing out everything for free.

SC: Why shouldn’t the truth be free?

Best,

SC

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hans: Despite your dislike for the idea you will have to find this Atlantis to be taken seriously.

SC: Why? I am not the one here making out that the advanced mathematical / astronomical knowledge we are presented with in the arrangement of the Giza monuments came from Atlanteans. I do not know which civilisation/culture placed this knowledge there but it exists and we must somehow find a means of explaining it. The discoveries I have made at Giza fly square in the face of the prevailing view of our prehistory, the custodians of which have no way of explaining it other than to concede that the prevailing model of our prehistoryl is wrong. Of course, they are hardly likely to concede this any day soon.

I am quite happy that the discoveries I present provide a significant blow to the prevailing view of our prehistory. Atlanteans, Egyptians or Vulcans is NOT the question – someone DID this and we have to try and discover who. This isn’t simply a job for me – it involves all of us.

The 'evidence' you seem so proud of is just your own mind finding patterns in a lot of data - and rejecting all data that doesn't fit - a bit of "the Texas sharpshooter fallacy". I know you don't want to believe that but have you noticed that anyone who has scientific training says about the same thing to you? There is a reason.

SC: Yes, I am proud of my work. Why shouldn’t I be? And I know you do not want to believe what I have presented – it’s simply too overwhelming for you to realise that what you have believed all your life might just be wrong. I can understand that. As for those with scientific training, they dismissed plate tectonics as pseudo–science when that idea was first proposed. It is now accepted as a cornerstone of geology. Show me ‘anyone who has scientific training’ who has delivered a fatal blow to my work.

Hans: You have a fine piece of fringe here but it will collaspe when viewed by anyone with a scientific/archaeological background. You know there ARE real reasons why Atlantis is not believed in?

SC: Fine piece of fringe? My work, as you well know, has been scrutinised endlessly by individuals with scientific training all over the world. No one has yet found ‘the fatal flaw’, delivered the killer blow. Indeed, when these people fail in their attempts to find this they then resort to the usual skeptic’s tactic of insisting it is not for them to disprove my theory but for me to prove it. A very convenient shift of the goalposts – why bother even trying to disprove my theory in the first place if, at the end, you will simply resort to this fall-back position? Why not just admit that the theory does indeed have merit? Guess that’s a step too much for the skeptics.

Hans: Good luck in finding Atlantis (I do hope you find it)

SC: Hans – I am not even remotely considering looking for Atlantis because this is NOT what my theory is about – as you well know. However, I do hope that with you being over at the ‘Ancient Place’ you will perhaps come up with an explanation to the paradox I present. How can we find such advanced astronomical / mathematical knowledge in the Giza ‘codex’ when the AEs (as far as we presently understand them) did not themselves possess such knowledge. Hope you can find an answer to that perplexing question. Good luck with it.

Best,

SC

I found a great documentary on youtube, about the idea of past civilization. I think it shows great evidence to support the claim. Highly recommended.

Forbidden Archeology

Part 1

[edit on 30-10-2007 by luis9343]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

In this area there will always be two types of people:

1. Those who claim to "know" the "facts" about our history ("scientists"). Oddly enough many of these "facts" have to be revised, changed and discarded over time.

2. Those who remain open and continue asking questions and considering all possibillities...not even taking "facts" as something final.


Scott may not be proposing an atlantis theory, but I am. If you had essentially identical stories coming from North Spain (Basques), Portugal, Ireland, North America, from the Mayans, from ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt...a story about a giant flood that drowned an entire civilization...

...you can either respectfully acknowledge that our ancestors were recalling some event that had an impact on them

...or you can be arrogant and say "they have no idea what they are talking about. I, living in the 21st Century, know more then them. My knowledge is based on "facts" and "evidence".

I write this not only for you but also for all the others like you that decide to come here and scoff at a different version of history than taught in school.

In fact...if there really were millions who died in a gigantic disaster it would be an outrage to deny that they existed....an outrage similar to holocaust-revisionism.

No offense though.

reply to post by luis9343

---

"Forbidden Archeology"...the book, the follow-up book and the videos are excellent tools for debunking contemporary schoolbooks in one go. You have to ask yourself how many decades its going to take until they renew their view.

reply to post by luis9343

---

Hi Luis,

Great link - thanks. I have read some of Cremo and Thomson's work and although some of their findings can be explained in terms of the prevailing narrative, they nevertheless present much which entirely contradicts our current view of our prehistory.

Thanks again.

Best,

SC

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Hello Skyfloating,

SkyFloating: Scott may not be proposing an atlantis theory, but I am. If you had essentially identical stories coming from North Spain (Basques), Portugal, Ireland, North America, from the Mayans, from ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt...a story about a giant flood that drowned an entire civilization...

SC: The work I present demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that an advanced civilisation existed at some time prior to the rise of the AE civilisation. This can be deduced because we know that the AEs simply did not possess the level of mathematical and astronomical knowledge we find in the 'Giza Codex' - ergo, it must have come from some other time/culture.

Now, was it Atlanteans that created the codex that the AEs eventually constructed? I simply do not know. All I can say is that it is quite a remarkable coincidence that the dates we find within the 'Giza Codex' correlate remarkably well with the dates Plato tells us, the dates Dr Paul LaViolette has found and the dates science itself is now telling us a catastrophic event occurred on Earth. It is my opinion that there exists a strong likelihood that these may well be connected and are not the result of simple happenchance.

However, Atlanteans or not, the FACT remains, the prevailing view is being challenged with the work I present for I have shown advanced knowledge at Giza that is simply out of time and place.

How did it get there? This is the paradox the purveyors of the accepted paradigm have to answer but, alas, seem intent on avoiding.

Best,

SC

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: