The Atlantean Conspiracy

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Howdy Nohup

Yes he was definitively writing for the locals! In 9000 BC there was no Athens, all that has been found in that area is neolithic hunting camps and the odd stone tool




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Well id have a lot more time for what you have to say if you didn't start calling people retarded because they don't agree with your hypothesis.

I would read the rest of your post but as ive already said anyone that has to resort to calling other posters retarded frankly doesn't deserve anymore of my time.


People here are like a bunch of effeminates who can't handle conflict or harsh words. I bet if Alex Jones was on ATS he'd be immediately kicked off for TC violations. Having said that, my "you" was plural and I meant everyone in the present is "retarded" (meaning stunted intelligence) compared to our amazing ancestors. Our present "experts" in every field have convinced us that we are the pinnacle of human evolution, and all that has come before was wrong or lesser in some way. The truth is that WE are dumbed down by materialist "science," fake history, the idiot box, government schools etc. and spend all our time looking to our stupid future instead of our intelligent past! The powers that be have convinced us that our ancestors were dumber than us, so we hold no reverence for anything in the past. The truth is the ancients were so unbelievably smart that we can't comprehend them.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
This book just sounds like a smattering of conjecture derived from assorted books on the shelves at the local Border's.

I'd like somebody to discover some rare old texts in a monastery or something detailing St. Brendan's journey. Scrolls from the library of Alexandria hidden in the desert written in Aztec script? Something interesting and new, rather than just a rehash of the same old poop. So to speak.


I wasn't taking orders when I researched and wrote this book. I'd like somebody to "discover some rare old texts in a monastery" that exposed The Atlantean Conspiracy too... so what!? Go cry to mommy about the kind of book you'd like to read. If you demeaning, unappreciative, effeminates would read my book instead of saying it "sounds like a smattering of conjecture derived from assorted books on the shelves at the local Border's," you might awaken some consciousness and compassion. You might realize I have every right to be annoyed with your posts.

I've spent almost 2 years of 10-hour days reading over 300 books, researching, compiling, and putting together The Atlantean Conspiracy which is undoubtedly one of the best books written so far on the global conspiracy. Then I spend all my time trying to give it to people FOR FREE and what are everyone's first reactions?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Well FT

I did note that you didn't respond to my criticisms and questions about your ideas - why is that?

Try answering my questions.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Hanslune, while I appreciate your comments and criticisms, I don't have the time to address individually your issues which are ALL covered in the book I've just spent 2 years writing. So please, I urge you and other readers of this thread to download and read the entirety of my book (or at least of the Atlantis chapter) THEN, come back and give your two cents. So far I'm just getting undeserved criticism and questions that are answered in the book!

www.linktoit.com/theatlanteanconspiracy

The book's got hundreds of color pictures too. The book is way better than this thread, I promise.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Hanslune, while I appreciate your comments and criticisms, I don't have the time to address individually your issues which are ALL covered in the book I've just spent 2 years writing. So please, I urge you and other readers of this thread to download and read the entirety of my book (or at least of the Atlantis chapter) THEN, come back and give your two cents. So far I'm just getting undeserved criticism and questions that are answered in the book!


Well FT I took a look at your "book" and you are mistaken it doesn't answer my questions.

On my question about your use of faulty quote from Colin Renfrew you simply repeat the same faulty quote on page 287 - you do not reference it - 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 have Colin's book - please tell me where that quote is....

You don't explain your error about Yonaguni - you just repeat it, and the error in stating a natural stone structure is "man-made". Its a natural object that was modified by man not made by man. You do understand the difference don't you?

"Atlantis" in Critias the word continent is mentioned twice - neither time in the context you state? Now in Timaeus there is a mention of an opposite continent - in this context




"the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean"


So this continent surrounded the Atlantic ocean huh?

Your "book" also didn't explain why you think Atlantis had "high technology" when Plato describes what there techno level was - and it was at the level of the Greeks of the Plato's time - again deliberate deception on your part.

Your copy and paste book also didn't explain your first error in mistating the size of the Mexican pyramid. Why is that? Is it because you were told to believe that and you didn't verify your sources? Of course like most of your document there are no references to a source for almost all claims. Did you just make it up?

You also didn't explain why books outside the US also carry the same history as the ones you say are Rockefeller effected. Why is that?

All in all your document is shallow, ill researched, a poorly edited cut and past job, mainly using such sterling intellectuals such as Icke and Tsarion. You do know that many of these visitors to k********e believe in theories that contradict one another and taking quotes out of context from these conflicting books and theories just makes your whole idea a mass of sheer "nothingness"?

May I suggest you take up a hobby - perhaps making soup would be more in your line.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Well FT I took a look at your "book" and you are mistaken it doesn't answer my questions.

On my question about your use of faulty quote from Colin Renfrew you simply repeat the same faulty quote on page 287 - you do not reference it - 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 have Colin's book - please tell me where that quote is....

You don't explain your error about Yonaguni - you just repeat it, and the error in stating a natural stone structure is "man-made". Its a natural object that was modified by man not made by man. You do understand the difference don't you?

Your copy and paste book also didn't explain your first error in mistating the size of the Mexican pyramid. Why is that? Is it because you were told to believe that and you didn't verify your sources? Of course like most of your document there are no references to a source for almost all claims. Did you just make it up?

All in all your document is shallow, ill researched, a poorly edited cut and past job

May I suggest you take up a hobby - perhaps making soup would be more in your line.


Hanslune is clearly a mason/agent (they follow me, check my post history to see where I've exposed them). 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. Go google the quote yourselves folks! Here's one of many links saying it's his:

www.deluxestocks.com...

The same goes for the Mexican 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!? Hanslune semantically says it was "modified by man" and not "man-made." 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 recently re-discovered. Is that clear enough for you, or do you have more Seinfeld semantics to throw at my thread?

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! 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.

Just download the book and decide for yourselves folks, please. Thanks, peace.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
As for the Yonaguni monument .... Hanslune semantically says it was "modified by man" and not "man-made." 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 recently re-discovered.


I'll read through your book later, but can I just say that there is absolutely no evidence the Yonaguni structure was modified using 'advanced' tools - in fact, there no evidence (only speculation) it was even modified using neolithic tools. Many of us suspect it may have been but we can't prove it. Given the rock type, neolithic would certainly have been adequate.

Your comment reads as if it's a fact that it was modified using advanced tool. It's not. It's just your opinion for which you offer no supportive evidence. There is a difference


(incidently, man made implies constructed entirely by man - like a house - whereas modified by man implies a nature feature that has been altered in some way - some caves for example)



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
The Table of Contents for The Atlantean Conspiracy

Presidential Bloodlines
The New World Order
Big Brother Surveillence Society
FEMA Concentration Camps
The Secret Society Network
The Free Masons
The Illuminati
Committee of 300
Skull and Bones
Bohemain Grove
The Federal Reserve
Round Table
CFR & RIIA
CIA
Bilderberg Group
Trilateral Commission
False Flag Operations
Problem, Reaction, Solution
The Lusitania and WWI
Pearl Harbor and WWII
Operation Northwoods
Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam War
Oklahoma City Bombing
9/11
Media Manipulation
Forced Government Indoctrination Camps
The Health Conspiracy
Fluoride
Vaccines
AIDS
Brotherhood Symbology
Illuminati Flame
Pyramid and All-Seeing Eye
The Dollar Bill
Sun and Stars
United States Incorporated
Schools, Courts, Churches and the Cult of Saturn
The Masonic Movie and Music Industries
Occult Numerology
5
12/13
32/33
40
666
7/7/7
9-11 Numerology & Symbology
Calendrical/Time Manipulation
Christopher Columbus and The New World
The Religious Conspiracy
Astrotheology
Santa, Jesus, Mithra and the Magic Mushroom
Atlantis
The Moon Landing Hoax
Aliens & Demons
Order Out of Chaos


Hello freight tomsen

I notice that "Thoth"and the "Emerald Tablets" are not mentioned in your summary. Any particular reason why?

Kind regards,

Dobbie



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dobbie
Hello freight tomsen

I notice that "Thoth"and the "Emerald Tablets" are not mentioned in your summary. Any particular reason why?


Hello Dobbie. That list wasn't a summary, it was a table of contents. So Thoth and the Emerald Tablets aren't in the TOC because they're not in my book. They're not in my book because they are somewhat off-topic for the aspects of Egypt/Atlantis I focused on.

As for the guy with the Yonaguni statement, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand your skepticism in accepting the notion of human devolution, but it is a fact that Yonaguni was "modified" by very advanced technology over 10,000 years ago. If you keep researching you'll eventually be forced to agree.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen

As for the guy with the Yonaguni statement, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand your skepticism in accepting the notion of human devolution, but it is a fact that Yonaguni was "modified" by very advanced technology over 10,000 years ago. If you keep researching you'll eventually be forced to agree.


What skepticism? What human devolution?

I'm the one who thinks that 10,000 years ago humans were quite capable of 'carving' the Yonaguni structure using only neolithic technology - you're the one who thinks they were dumber than modern humans and therefore needed 'advanced technology' to achieve it



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
nice work

as its basis in my studying synchromysticism;

someone did a nice piece here

rundonotwalk.blogspot.com...

and it led me to think after 2012 and consciousness is greater than what has been percieved now as reality; will we create more wonderous monument in a realm that is different than earth and will what is now known as the earth also change. according to the bible it will. but has changes like this happened before as well; and another piece from insidethecosmiccube.blogspot.com...

so maybe there was a division in the waters as suggested and out from the waters as the word or whatever relative force you would like to call it; creation occurs; but in this time different than now then consciousness or the word was very close to now: as in the present time we are close in similar fashion.


so what if the other hemisphere noted the other side of the tree of life which stems all the way to north star and the world did indeed seem flat.

like what is presented here
www.jayweidner.com...

it all seems true and correct

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Ausar]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Interesting how you say we devolved. Egypt built pyramids that lasted over 2,000 year and we can't get our bridges to last us 50 years! We need that type of masonry.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Interesting how you say we devolved. Egypt built pyramids that lasted over 2,000 year and we can't get our bridges to last us 50 years! We need that type of masonry.

We cant? As an obvious example, Golden Gate is 71 years old now. Its still standing AFAIK.

Its not quite a fair comparison. How do you think the shape the Great Pyramid would be in if we where to drive 100,000 cars over it every single day for 50 years?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


True to a point, I suppose. but keep in mind. The ancient built using rocks. The pyramids are basically built into a hill or mountain shape, with tunnels on the inside. The buildings they made of wood rarely lasted until today. Mainly their boats, whichever were presevrved, and murals and statues give any idea of their perishable building matierials. The greeks and Romans, as well as a few other cultures most likely, used types of cement, much like we do today, which did last. However we also make and use similar types.
However, modern day constructuions are not meant to last. They are bui8lt fairly flimsy in comparison, using concrete, steel rebar, glass, and wood, with maybe some solid rock as decoration or foundation. Most buildings are torn down to be replaced by new ones after fifty or so years. So in a way, the more advanced we become, the less we leave behind in way of permanence.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen

Originally posted by Dobbie
Hello freight tomsen

I notice that "Thoth"and the "Emerald Tablets" are not mentioned in your summary. Any particular reason why?


Hello Dobbie. That list wasn't a summary, it was a table of contents. So Thoth and the Emerald Tablets aren't in the TOC because they're not in my book. They're not in my book because they are somewhat off-topic for the aspects of Egypt/Atlantis I focused on.



oh, okay. Thanks,

Dobbie



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I found this truly remarkable and I feel that it SHOULD be a part of your book, the scale of this 'project' if employed by any ancient culture, be it civilised, non terrestrial, whatever, is truly amazing.

It also mentions sacred geometry etc, good read and an interesting theory to ponder. (last link seems most detailed)

www.crystalinks.com...
www.dowsingworks.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


[edit on 9-4-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   


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.”


I said

"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 138/146"

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 recently re-discovered.


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?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'm sorry Hanslune, you're obviously an agent, and I don't play your misinfo reindeer games. Everybody reading this thread can check my quotes and references for themselves. Look at the book people, most of my quotes are referenced down to the page number and the one's that aren't, you can google for yourselves. Colin Renfrew, the Mexican Pyramid, and the rest of my book is sourced satisfactorally. Hanslune is just doing his job (selling his soul), trying to discredit me and deter you from downloading and reading the book.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
I'm sorry Hanslune, you're obviously an agent, and I don't play your misinfo reindeer games.


Tsk tsk Eric - so you're admiting you don't have the references and you made the stuff up? I'm an agent huh? LOL


Everybody reading this thread can check my quotes and references for themselves.


That you don't reference stuff and make up a lot of stuff you cannot defend - it is obvious isn't it?


Look at the book people, most of my quotes are referenced down to the page number and the one's that aren't, you can google for yourselves.


Really Eric, hmmmm here is a direct copy from page 287 of your "document"



Heroes die and are reborn as stars.

“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.” -Colin
Renfrew, “Before Civilization”

The Noah flood myth from the bible


You are mistaken you do NOT provide a referenced page number for you manufactured quote. you took the quote from a fringe source didn't you? You've never seen Renfrew book have you?



Colin Renfrew, the Mexican Pyramid, and the rest of my book is sourced satisfactorally.


Big belly laugh there Eric, since you don't seem to understand anything about scholarship like citing a reference I'll give you an example of a real one below.

Turow, J. (1994). Hidden conflicts and journalistic norms: The case of self-coverage. Journal of Communication, 44 (2), 12-31.

See the above Eric that is a REAL cite of a reference. - Need I say you don't do that - by the way where is your bibliography? I'd love to see these three hundred books you said you read.


Hanslune is just doing his job (selling his soul), trying to discredit me and deter you from downloading and reading the book.


You accused me of following you around - got any evidence or is this another of your empty lies? We both know the answer don't we?

Discredit you? You do that job yourself with aplomb. With buckets of copied materials from other fringe writers, and bad references, no new ideas - just the SOS.

You have a good day Eric

Hans





top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join