Atlantis' exclusion from Ancient Maps

Originally posted by dooper
Read the texts again, and then turn the globe on it's side. You'll see what you're looking for.

Now they call it "Antarctica."

So Athens defeated an army of Atlantean penquins before Antarctic sank beneath the sea?

Antarctica doesn't fit any of the elements of Plato's story and has been ice covered for the last milllion years (the latest ice cores go back 900,000 years).

I've seen it on plenty of ancient maps... of course some are claimed to be phony, but you cant really prove that, right?
I dont see anyone gaining from putting false info on a map, they're used to navigate, no sense in going to an island that doesnt exist. I think its more like Hyper Borei, which was just Arctic before it froze, or Thule, which Im currently researching (quite lazily at that), Im currently of the opinion it is just an ancient name for Norge.

And besides, all of the ancient Norse maps Ive been privy to have things like Iceland, Greenland, america, northern africa, and they turned out to be real places. No reason the other "mythological" points on the maps werent as well. At least in their time.

Originally posted by Ridhya
I think its more like Hyper Borei, which was just Arctic before it froze, or...

And besides, all of the ancient Norse maps Ive been privy to have things like Iceland, Greenland, america, northern africa, and they turned out to be real places.

You can make claims like these all day. You have absolutely nothing to support them.

For example, I know for a fact that ancient maps never included Atlantis.

That's because I drew every ancient map in existence.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional.

Prove me wrong.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


That's because I drew every ancient map in existence.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional.

Prove me wrong.

so you are saying that you taught high school math all day long, did fake cartography all night and became a self proclaimed failed atlantologist on your summer vacations? thats quite ... i don't know what... sad?

ps. boreans were thracians. hyperboreans were the folks north of the danube.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Parta]

reply to post by Harte


Ha! I know for a fact that you didn't draw them Mr. Harte, because I did - I double dare you to prove me wrong.

LOL

Hans,

You blew it, dude!

Now everyone can deduce that we are the same person!

Harte

We of course have the Greek legends, and the Greek term for Atlantis. I suspect that a lot of legend is in fact based in part on events as told and retold.

For example, (keep in mind this is off my memory from years ago) if I recall correctly, fifth century BC historian Herodotus quotes the Egyptian priests, who in turn cited their own ancient records of ancient catastrophic geological events, reporting that in the previous 11,000 years, the sun set twice from where it rises, and rose twice from where it set.

It would appear that with the habitual stability of the rotation of the earth, the seasons changed and the hours were somehow disordered. I believe it was the Chinese emperor prior to Yu, was required to send out scholars across the land to determine north, south, east, and west, and to draw up a new calendar.

Other writing suggest that water flooded across the land, and remained for some time. What they describe would happen if the oceans were sloshed upon the shore in the event of a rollover.

A simple reversal or wandering of the magnetic poles would not require one to redetermine where north, south, east, and west were. And a simple magnetic pole shift would not require the scholars to determine an entirely new calendar.

Something drastic happened to alter everyone's perceptions previously known. Something changed. Drastically.

I apologize for doing this from memory, but the evidence of a rollover is far greater than mainstream geology allows. Hell, to pursue this is to admit that all geology is catastrophic in nature, and thus evolution is out the window as one must have a steady-state environment.

They don't want to open up two cans of worms at the same time. And they'll deny and ignore anomalyous evidence every single day to hold to their preconceived notions.

How exactly, did many ancient maps show Antarctica plainly, centuries before being rediscovered in the early 1800's?

Many more questions with steady-state geology than answers.

Howdy Dooper

They don't want to open up two cans of worms at the same time. And they'll deny and ignore anomalyous evidence every single day to hold to their preconceived notions.

Hans: Whose they? You obviously don't have much current awareness of the activities in the physical sciences - so for your theory to be true every scientist in the world is in on this conspiracy?

How exactly, did many ancient maps show Antarctica plainly, centuries before being rediscovered in the early 1800's?

Hans: Easy, because they don't.

Many more questions with steady-state geology than answers.

Hans: Ah Dooper steady-state geology was a theory attached to the dogma of the church. It was taken apart in the late 18th century by Hutton and others. The last vestiges of that theory died away between 1910-1950 and were quietly buried when the tectonic plate theory was evidenced.







[edit on 21/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

Maybe I have more of an awareness of the physical sciences than you allow. I never mentioned a conspiracy of any kind, and for you to suggest that I did is most dishonest.

I speak of the current theories as generally accepted and taught in mainstream physical sciences, as taught in universities.

You must understand my skepticism of mainstream science. Six years ago, our small team violated, and I mean really violated classical physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, had our results independently verified, certified, and signed by a well-known forensics laboratory that major Universities use. This lab signed a non-disclosure agreement, and has done well by it.

So you'll forgive me if I hold mainstream science as a bit behind the times, a bit unknowing, and often - wrong. Each year, they are compelled to finally catch up and bring their science up to partially meet discoveries made decades ago.

You are most incorrect when you state that the existence of maps of what we today know as Antarctica is not on maps that predate the official rediscovery of Antarctica in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

I don't expect you to know of them, nor be able to find them, because they aren't in mainstream textbooks. You'd actually have to do some looking.

As for me, I've seen the frigging maps.

And friend, steady-state geology had not one damned thing to do with religion. In fact, religion more characteristically supports catastrophic geology, even starting in the first Chapters of Genesis.

This recent reversal of acknowledging catastrophic geology has mainly occurred very, very recently.

Steady-state geology was necessary to support Darwin's concepts of evolution, for without steady-state geology that allows painfully slow, incremental changes, no evolution would occur.

What we find that works, as evidenced in the rocks, is catastrophic geology. Even Darwin, once he got his ass out of the office and into the world, was astonished by the catastrophic geology, the mass extinctions, and the rapid violence that he witnessed.

Don't tell me. You're a geologist. Or a professor?

Howdy Dooper

Maybe I have more of an awareness of the physical sciences than you allow. I never mentioned a conspiracy of any kind, and for you to suggest that I did is most dishonest.

Hans: Dishonest, hmmm did you say the following, “They don't want to open up two cans of worms at the same time. And they'll deny and ignore anomalyous evidence every single day to hold to their preconceived notions.” So how do they do that? It just takes one to break the whole thing out in the open, if the mechanism is NOT a conspiracy how do they manage to do it so seamlessly and world-wide? Or are you stating they are just stupid-all of them all over the world?

I speak of the current theories as generally accepted and taught in mainstream physical sciences, as taught in universities.

Hans: It is your belief that in todays Universities steady state geology is taught? I'm afraid not accept in the history of Geology.

You must understand my skepticism of mainstream science. Six years ago, our small team violated, and I mean really violated classical physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, had our results independently verified, certified, and signed by a well-known forensics laboratory that major Universities use. This lab signed a non-disclosure agreement, and has done well by it.

Hans: Let me guess there is no way to verify this claim right? Would Clausius believe you? How have they done well - I see no products that make use of this?

So you'll forgive me if I hold mainstream science as a bit behind the times, a bit unknowing, and often - wrong. Each year, they are compelled to finally catch up and bring their science up to partially meet discoveries made decades ago.

Hans: Ah that is what science is supposed to do, as new evidence comes in some theories changed- why do you find that “unknowing”?

I don't expect you to know of them, nor be able to find them, because they aren't in mainstream textbooks. You'd actually have to do some looking.

Hans: I have and have seen misidentified maps or forgeries

As for me, I've seen the frigging maps.

Hans: Pray tell and clue us in on them please? I'm sure you did see map, Wald's? Typus Orbis Terra? Vinland? Piri Reis? Orontius Finaeus map, Rosselli Mercasters? Some other?

And friend, steady-state geology had not one damned thing to do with religion.

Hans: Actually it does the creation of earth and the flood was responsible for evidence of chaos and sedimentation. Everything was as it was, the world didn’t change, continents didn’t move.

In fact, religion more characteristically supports catastrophic geology, even starting in the first Chapters of Genesis. This recent reversal of acknowledging catastrophic geology has mainly occurred very, very recently.

Hans: Really? So you concede that steady state is out and some aspects of catastrophic has been acknowledge? Well done, but this contradict your earlier statements on it being taught in mainstream colleges and Universities.

Steady-state geology was necessary to support Darwin's concepts of evolution, for without steady-state geology that allows painfully slow, incremental changes, no evolution would occur.

Hans: Ah no, no such linkage was made or needed. Catastrophic events have been a major contributory factor in evolution, wiping out species and puting stress on those that survive to become better and more adaptable.

What we find that works, as evidenced in the rocks, is catastrophic geology. Even Darwin, once he got his ass out of the office and into the world, was astonished by the catastrophic geology, the mass extinctions, and the rapid violence that he witnessed.

Hans: hmmm doesn’t this statement contradict the statement made one paragraph above?

Dooper I would suggest we start over and try to stay within the thread's purpose, produce a link to a map that you say shows Antarctic before the standardly accepted date of discovery. One that you know hasn't been debunked 22,000 times before.




[edit on 22/1/09 by Hanslune]

Why are you so quick to dismiss? If it doesnt exist, let the ignorant believe it. But if it does, you are hindering!
And there is no "the vinland map" there are many. Well, maybe not many but multiple. The Norse has advanced knowledge of cartography and use of compasses.

PS who are the Thracians, and do you know of the Scythians? I believe they are present day Balkans or Russians.

Originally posted by Ridhya

PS who are the Thracians, and do you know of the Scythians? I believe they are present day Balkans or Russians.

i guess to the greeks [ydna j2a], the thracians [j2b & e3b] lived north of them but south of the danube. the scythians [r1whatever] were to the north of the thracians. aurignacians are supposed to be of the r1 family so you could see where the hyperborean claim on antiquity might come from.

Originally posted by dooper
We of course have the Greek legends, and the Greek term for Atlantis. I suspect that a lot of legend is in fact based in part on events as told and retold.

There exist no known or inferred Greek "legends" concerning Atlantis.

Originally posted by dooperFor example, (keep in mind this is off my memory from years ago) if I recall correctly, fifth century BC historian Herodotus quotes the Egyptian priests, who in turn cited their own ancient records of ancient catastrophic geological events, reporting that in the previous 11,000 years, the sun set twice from where it rises, and rose twice from where it set.

You asked for correction, here it is.

Herodotus might say something about this, but he says nothing at all about Atlantis.

Plato claimed in the Timaeus and the Critias (two of the Dialogues he's famous for) that the Greek Statesman Solon heard these stories from a priest in Sais, Egypt.

No record exists from Solon, who was a poet as well, concerning this.

No myth in Egypt, no Egyptian legend, can be in any way connected to Plato's story.

Originally posted by Harte

No myth in Egypt, no Egyptian legend, can be in any way connected to Plato's story.

there is Ra, lord of the hidden circles of the tuat.

and Enki and his bolts that hold back the sea

then in the second chapter of the vendidad you have a great three ringed city which gets destroyed.

Originally posted by Ridhya
And there is no "the vinland map" there are many.

Hans is referring to the famous forgery, usually referred to as "The Vinland Map."

Maybe you've heard of it? I drew it.

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune

Hans, you ask how "scientists" manage to hold to things that aren't true? The scientific community is more of a religion, cult-ish to be sure. There are only the Commandments (sanitized and approved by mainstream thinkers) and then there are the defenders (many who have learned by rote, teach the same, and hold any unapproved, sanitized evidence as anathema) who will deny all evidence to the contrary when it manifests itself.

Since you seem to be among the number of the defenders, with that closed mindset, and appear to require an example for demonstration purposes, I'll be happy to accommodate.

Among all the physical sciences, probably the discipline least subject to interpretation is the field of physics. Let's take one example to hopefully expose you to how the "defenders" circle the wagons to fight off non-sanitized discoveries.

A man who never attended graduate school proposed that scientists examine his discovery. When they determined that his credentials were "insufficient" - not only was he unpublished, but to make matters worse, he was self-taught. (Remember how you mentioned Velikovsky?)

Therefore, anything he had to propose would of course be incorrect, especially since he not only had not finished grad school, but he never finished high schools. What he proposed was widely denounced by the entire physics community, including physicists from national laboratories, higher learning institutions, and even those who were somewhat invested since they wrote the current textbooks.

After all, these physicists had a lot of reputation to lose if he was correct. After all, this would prove that they were all wrong.

When Ovshinski proposed they examine his amorphous semiconductor, they refused to even consider it, and publicly denounced his claim as blatantly false.

Only when these amorphous semiconductors began showing up in commercially available devices, and increasingly adapted to other technologies, was the conventional wisdom of mainstream science wrong. But suddenly, all those highly educated critics changed their rhetoric and announced that they had personally suspected this capability all along.

When you have published papers in appropriate scientific journals, and deemed proper by your peers, that is the test of validity. You can be dead-assed wrong, but as long as the dead-assed wrong peer review is sufficient, even the flat-earth belief is carved in stone.

That's how it works in the scientific community. And it positively sucks.

As I get time, I'll dissect your other refutations.

Narrow-minded, prideful, know-it-alls are a dime a dozen.

But, you have a lot of elitist company.

reply to post by dooper


Howdy Dooper

I notice you didn't say anything about my query concerning your claim to have overcome a physical law - how so fringe of you! LOL

Another "Science is evil and never changes it mind" guy. So how do you explain the deluge of inventions, new theories, materials, devices and overall increase in knowledge in all fields of science?

What I think you are saying is that "evil science" rejects some of your fringe ideas - yes they do because the evidence doesn't support them - if they did they'd be swept up and taken into the body of knowledge.

Ovshinski had over 400 patents and did 300 publications and as he wiki says

He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His awards include: the 2005 Innovation Award for Energy and the Environment by The Economist; the American Solar Energy Society Hoyt Clarke Hottel Award; the Karl W. Böer Solar Energy Medal of Merit; the International Association for Hydrogen Energy Sir William Grove Award; and the Frederick Douglass/Eugene V. Debs Award (2006). He was named “Hero for the Planet" by Time magazine (1999), with Iris Ovshinsky Hero of Chemistry 2000 by the American Chemical Society, and he was inducted into the 2005 Solar Hall of Fame. In 1968, he received the Diesel Gold Medal presented by the German Inventors Association (Deutscher Erfinderverband), in recognition of his discovery of the semiconductor switching effect in disordered and amorphous materials. Ovshinsky is however the first to remark that his many achievements and contributions could not have been made without the dedicated help of the talented collaborators he worked with over the years and to whom he remains grateful for their contibution, commitment, and dedication.

Yep the "mainstream" really ignored this guy and shut him out. LOL

So what about maps? That is what this thread is about isn't it?

[edit on 22/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


Now you're getting a bit frustrated. I never mentioned anything about "evil" science. Why do you resort to such low-life fabrications?

That's two fabrications in a row for you.

I also mentioned that I'd address other topics as I got time.

Good of the scientists, including Nobel laureates to get on the wagon - after the parade was well started.

Your cheesy article doesn't mention his situation in the seventies and early eighties. Those same scientists weren't so accommodating when he was actually proposing the amorphous semiconductor, so don't even try it.

You won't find in that article how scientists gave him nothing but unlimited sarcasm and criticism in the early stages of his discoveries. You should determine how they were treating him a few decades ago.

Again, only after it was commercially operating, did they admit this capability existed.

As far as what we did some six years ago, the test engineers know, the forensic laboratory knows. Old news. We're way past that now.

In the event you have any doubts, we can arrange for a third part to hold $100,000 from each of us. The moment we produce those certified lab results violating known, classical physics to the third party, I get both piles of money, and you get the proof.

If I can't produce the certified results, you get both piles of money.

Put up or shut up.

Hans: Because you seem to think there is a massive conspiracy between all scientist in the world to hold back new discoveries and that they are a cult -

That's two fabrications in a row for you.

Hans: no two fabrications for yourself my fringy friend

Those same scientists weren't so accommodating when he was actually proposing the amorphous semiconductor, so don't even try it.

Hans: you mean until he proved he could do it they didn’t credit him with being able to? How odd – why would they do that? Theories come and go proof is the bottom line. That is how science operates - why is it you don't understand it?

Again, only after it was commercially operating, did they admit this capability existed.

Your cheesy article doesn't mention his situation in the seventies and early eighties. Those same scientists weren't so accommodating when he was actually proposing the amorphous semiconductor, so don't even try it.

You won't find in that article how scientists gave him nothing but unlimited sarcasm and criticism in the early stages of his discoveries. You should determine how they were treating him a few decades ago.

He telephoned John Bardeen, a coinventor of the transistor and codiscoverer of the BCS theory of superconductivity, by this time a Nobel Laureate. Bardeen immediately recognized the importance of Ovshinsky’s result but his schedule did not permit him to visit ECL for five months. Stan replied, “We’ll be broke by then.” Instead Bardeen sent Hellmut Fritzsche, a University of Chicago physicist. Fritzsche became very positive in his support of Ovshinsky’s work and helped attract other scientists to the Ovshinsky laboratory. As Fritzsche and Brian Schwartz later wrote , “There is a mysterious quality in Ovshinsky’s persona that attracts people into his sphere, builds life long friendships and awakens deep respect and devotion. Meeting him leaves each person with a deep impression of his superior intellect, his self confidence, his compassion to improve society combined with his certainty that his vision can be realized. His enthusiasm is contagious. In his presence, you feel how exciting it would be to join him in his endeavors” (page 3, Fritzsche and Schwartz reference below in “Further Reading”). Among the many famous scientists who came regularly to ECD as friends or collaborators over the next years, were Bardeen, Arthur Bienenstock, Morrel Cohen, Kenichi Fukui, William Lipscomb, Sir Nevill Mott, Linus Pauling, Isadore I. Rabi, Edward Teller, David Turnbull, Victor Weisskopf, and Robert R. Wilson. Some joined as consultants or as members of the Board of Directors. Meanwhile, the ECD community developed a uniquely productive nonhierarchical multicultural and international culture reflectiing Stan and Iris’ social values. In 1964, Stan and Iris changed the laboratory’s name to Energy Conversion Devices, at the time when the company moved to larger quarters in Troy, Michigan.

The article on the gentleman in Wiki seems to paint a completely different picture than what you are alleging...why is that? What is your source of information on this?

As far as what we did some six years ago, the test engineers know, the forensic laboratory knows. Old news. We're way past that now.

Hans: Know what exactly? Can you point to the published paper? What are you actually claiming was done and what was your part in this team that did it?

In the event you have any doubts, we can arrange for a third part to hold $100,000 from each of us. The moment we produce those certified lab results violating known, classical physics to the third party, I get both piles of money, and you get the proof.

Hans: Why would you go thru all of that? Seems rather senseless. Just point out the information – or are you saying there is no publicly available information on it? I've seen this ploy by fringe before, make a false statement they try to bluff their way out. Just provide the information and stove the the drama....you are acting rather silly.

If I can't produce the certified results, you get both piles of money.

Hans: I’ll give ya a dollar

Put up or shut up.

Hans: I have 1 dollar is that okay with you? Or do you have some other agenda? You do know this thread is about maps-why are you refusing to talk about maps?

Oh by the way is this what you are talking about?

"Now Australian researchers writing in the July 29 [2002] issue of Physical Review Letters report that even larger systems of thousands of molecules can also undergo fleeting energy increases that seem to violate the venerable law. "



[edit on 22/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


That's what I thought.

A bold pretender.

Your values, your truths, by your own words are worth:

One dollar.

A shame.