Hanslune is clearly a mason/agent (they follow me, check my post history to see where I've exposed them).
Ahhhh Eric, I was just posting here before you came, I'm not following you around. You're sounding like a nutter, try to remain with us on this
planet. LOL. Actually you got here (ATS) a week or so before me - in the summer of 2007. Please show evidence that I've been following you around?
He keeps calling me out on the Colin Renfrew quote, saying "what are you trying to hide Eric? That you made the quote up by editing what you wanted
and now that you've been called on it you trying to hide?" I haven't made the quote up.
I had to ask you repeatedly because your material is not referenced and you dodged the first questions - why not provide the reference when first
asked? Better yet, have the book properly referenced.
Here is what you link to - which is incorrect by the way I asked for a cite to the actual page in the book.
This is a secondary quote - I still am requesting the actual cite of the page numbers Eric. This is what the web site says:
Archaeologists all over the world have realized that much of prehistory, as written in the existing textbooks, is inadequate. Some is quite simply
wrong. What has come as a considerable shock, a development hardly foreseeable just a few years ago, is that prehistory, as we have learnt it is based
upon several assumptions which can no longer be accepted as valid…"
This is what you're saying colin said
“Archaeologists all over the world have realized that much of prehistory as written in the existing textbooks, is inadequate, some of it quite
simply wrong…It has been suggested…that the changes now at work in prehistory herald the shift to a ‘new paradigm,’…made necessary by the
collapse of the first paradigm.” ”
Hmmmm they aren't the same are they? You are leaving out the full quote for a reason - why is that?
So Eric please provide the cite (that is a page number of the book and full ID of the book, the ISBN will do)
The same goes for the Mexican pyramid.
Sorry, you didn't address my issues, please go back and read what I said, not just wave your hand and try to move on...
The base length of the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacán is identical in length to the base of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Where are those odds?
Teotihuacán means “the place where men become Gods.”
"Not really the baseline of the pyramid of the sun (in its second building the first was much smaller) was 225 x 75 versus the Giza pyramid of 230 by
The base lines are not identical, and the present pyramid of the Sun is the second rebuilding, which was built around 200 BC some 2,300 years after
the Giza pyramid.....
As for the Yonaguni monument, download the book and have a look at the color photos for yourselves. Do you think this was a natural 10,000 year old
underwater temple!? .
Who says its 10,000 years old - its millions, it rock, and that same structure extends up on the dry land. Looks like a rock to me, it may have been
modified at some point by man.
Hanslune semantically says it was "modified by man" and not "man-made."
Actually I left out a word, that word is "may', it may have been modified by man
Yes, Hanslune, the huge natural rock formations were "God-made" then "modified by man" 10,000 years ago, using advanced tools that we have just
May have been modified by man, most people who have investigated it and the similar above water sites believe it is natural - the debate goes on -
there has been no dating of the rock formation - if you are aware of a study that does so (instead of a guess) please post that link.
He then says "All in all your document is shallow, ill researched, a poorly edited cut and past job." This is just inflammatory and
unsubstantiated because it is clear to ANYONE who downloads it, that this book is/has been a piece of work!
Yes you did a lot of work copying other fringe writers materials - and not checking their assumptions. Yes we agree it is a piece of work.
I've read over 300 books and spent 2 years researching, compiling, and writing this conspiratorial anthology and he calls it a "copy and
paste book" so that you won't download it and won't take me seriously.
Because Eric that is what it is, what original material or ideas does it contain? All you have appeared to have done is taken material from a lot of
fringe authors, reworded some of it, taken some out of context and slapped it all together - and failed to reference it all.
Oh you forgot to response to this criticism
Plato wrote about an advanced civilization that flourished in Atlantis around 10,000 BC. He even made the point that some take Atlantis to be
a myth but it is absolutely true. He even said when the flood occurred figuring approximately 9600 BC. Atlantean-like legends are on every inhabited
continent and always include advanced beings often revered as gods with high technology and developed culture.
Then I wote
"Plato also wrote about there technology and weaponry, slingers and triremes - not particularly advanced - equal to the Greeks of Plato's day.
Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced? Also Plato states that they had an empire covering the Western Med - why no sign of it in
the archaeological record?"
I appreciate your comments on why you think Atlantis was "high tech", when Plato clearly lays out a civilization using triremes and slings?