Originally posted by Hanslune
Well good then you can answer the questions the document is unable to answer - not that I expect you to - the short answer is that the document
contains a great of misrepresentation and error in the area of archaeology.
Happy to try...
(havent read all that much of it yet, maybe tonight)
The way scholarship works is that you produce an idea or a document then get input. You then discuss it and compare evidence - if your idea is wrong
you make corrections or find more evidence.
true and agreed, however, if you think someone is attacking you, or not taking you seriously, you might tend to ignore them. Not sure if this is what
happened, just an example.
Well the document was produced and input provided and the system then short-circuited on a ego overload fed by a bad case of nothavingtheanswers
maybe I should go back and reread the posts that started all this and give a slightly impartial view on this.
lets see: you asked about rockerfeller text books and made a relevant point about US-centric coverup.
He made a response to "read the book" and a perhaps poorly worded comment on your mindset on ancient cultures which I dont see as being
intentionally offensive, but which I could certainly understand someone taking offense to.
I personally (think I) know what he means by rockerfeller text books, what he means is: ask the average high school graduate who discovered America,
what will they answer? And while the answer depends on which country you ask it in, you are still unlikely to get an even vaguely accurate answer
unless that person is a history buff... (and certainly they are not likely to know of any controversial "Atlantis related" or other controversial
possibilities). He means they will know only what I might call 'bubblegum' history, simple semi propagandaish stories that may or may not even be
true. Just because real history is out there does not mean 90% of people will know it.
next you had some questions on figures lets see: side lengths of pyramids, 225 vs 230 which you are of course, correct (only a 2% difference I might
mention, I suppose you could forgive an ancient culture for getting it wrong by 2% after being separated for a while, depends if they are supposed to
have built them at the same time or not, and if the cultures are supposed to have still been in contact at the time (according to FT's theory I
mean). Then again, there are all those claims for amazing accuracy so on the GP...
Then you asked again about history outside the US: I believe I partly answered this: it's not about what you can find out with proper study, its
about what the average person (say 80%) picks up during their "education". Ever seen a semi random sampling of Americans simply being asked to point
out X country on a globe? very worrying to say the least. Or in my case, I'm not an Austrian I'm an Australian!... they are in entirely different
parts of the world!
you then misinterpreted his (easy to misinterpret) "retarded" comment to be deliberately offensive, and made a good point about ancient man, in that
they are thought to be somewhat identical in brain power etc to us now, just not have the same knowledge. I believe FT might be confusing stupider
with less educated, not the same. He also commented on you basically being brainwashed, with which I'd agree (but I think almost everyone, including
me , is, to some degree. Its can sometimes be VERY hard to separate real conspiracy from disinfo). Basically hes saying: You either switch paradigms
or you dont, no point arguing for this within your paradigm because it wont fit, either you think there might be a coverup, or its all just unlikely
speculation. I know why he said it, I also see why it annoyed you.
you then told him you would not read his book without him proving you should with new evidence (your right, but 1) how would he know what you have
seen before, and 2)not likely to make him want to keep talking to you... )
You mentioned a quote, I cant find the full one to know what you mean about being deceptive, but what he gave is certainly attributed to him around
the web. (allthough we've been through this a little before haven't we hans
You ask about the yonaguni, I believe he answered and said yes, he did think it was man made, and to download the book and see. I've got to admit,
the images (pg 287 288) are particularly convincing, though of course Im no geologist, but they are convincing enough for me to say the onus should
(almost) now be on those trying to prove they are NOT man made, rather than the normal situation of the vice versa. And that if man made, it appears
to go beyond the stone age sorts of things we are "supposed" to have been doing back then.
you ask about the opposite continent reference, which seems disingenuous, it seems plainly obvious he meant
"these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean" etc etc, and the expanded section of T certainly
sounds to me to be talking about an island in the atlantic and america on the other side... but thats just me.
you then ask
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?
to which I'd answer: assuming plato's civilisation is pretty much how we think it is, he was telling a story passed on for thousands of years
through low tech (ie ~bronze age, some 'worse') cultures. The language used could not be expected to be any another than that which they understood
could it? surely you can see that. Also whether or not the civilisation had "vimanas" and "nuclear bombs" or was just a atlantic spanning maritime
power, it is still relevant, dont you think?
you then state:
Also Plato states that they had an empire covering the Western Med - why no sign of it in the archaeological record?
again, somewhat disingenuous, given he just offered you a book you have declined to read called "the atlantean conspiracy", no less...! The answer
is that it is mostly covered up Anyway, to this, I would like to point you again to www.atlantisquest.com, in the hope that you'll confirm or deny my
thoughts that this has some decent evidence for its existence, from all round the world.
At this point, I'll give you my thoughts on all this (next post)