From what I know, there were Vikings landing here long before Columbus ever did. That is really all I have. I don't know too much about the whole Atlantis deal.

Deny Ignorance.

DTOX X

I'd suggest performing your research from books that don't try to prove what they automatically assume is true.

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place. But then that's not as much fun as trying to conjure up some massive conspiracy as to why "they" are keeping this information from us, is it? It's also a lot less profitable.

Howdy Diablomonic

I'm not an expert in Etymology, which is why I posted only a funny piece on the error of giving excessive reliance to word list comparisons to promote connections between groups of people.

If you noticed, I comment only on FT's archaeological and history portion of his document. That part is full of errors and very poorly referenced. He refuses to address my comments directed at those portions. 'nough said, I take his omission as an acceptance that those materials are wrong and my arguments correct.

Essan your short note on Berlitz left out one key phrase, "crapola for money". Other than that it was great!

The view out the window is lovely.

Howdy Diablomonic

The Maya languages are logosyllabic and as you noted not alphabetic.*

When Donnelly was making stuff up the Maya language was not completely understood. Now that it has been "broken", Donnelly's stuff looks particularly silly. De Landa made the error of assuming that his informants understood what he wanted and he tried to interpret what they were saying based on his Spanish bias - all in all a botch job.

I would recommend:

Breaking the Maya Code (Paperback) by Michael D. Coe

Gives the details of how this discipherment was done - good book.

*While working in Mexico I learned a bit of the Yucatec Maya while working on sites around Merida. To many of our workers Spanish was a foreign language.

Originally posted by dave420

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place

sure it was. A metaphor that people on both sides of the atlantic somehow shared. and didn't realize
was a metaphor.

Howdy Diablomonic

I think tomsen is acting in good (short tempered) faith, and I think you are to, but I see both points of view.

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.

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.

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 fever. LOL

Originally posted by Hanslune
When Donnelly was making stuff up the Maya language was not completely understood. Now that it has been "broken", Donnelly's stuff looks particularly silly. De Landa made the error of assuming that his informants understood what he wanted and he tried to interpret what they were saying based on his Spanish bias - all in all a botch job.

I'm not sure silly is the word I would use for that particular part of his book... Mistaken, sure, but if the rest of the letters from other alphabets were right, then it seemed like he did what would have seemed like some good research unfortunately based on bad data and therefore his conclusions (for that part) were wrong (rubbish in rubbish out as they say).

I'll have a look for that book you mentioned and see if I can get the answers I want. Basically the "letter" coincidences in donelly's book are fascinating and Im wondering if there is any possibility they had some significance even if mostly wrong? just how wrong was the de landa alphabet? random example is the symbol for 'S' given actually a symbol for a particulular syllable including 'S' (eg SU) or just pure nonsense? (repeat question for other letters).

Originally posted by diablomonic

Originally posted by dave420

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place

sure it was. A metaphor that people on both sides of the atlantic somehow shared. and didn't realize
was a metaphor.

Unsubstatiated statement of faith.

Not factual in the least.

No people on either side of the Atlantic shared anything at all about anything even remotely resembling Atlantis, even with each other, much less across the Atlantic.

Even the Greeks and the Egyptians, the two main participants in Plato's tale, never heard of anything like Atlantis.

Harte

T & C came into the world unsupported.

Originally posted by diablomonic
Basically the "letter" coincidences in donelly's book are fascinating and Im wondering if there is any possibility they had some significance even if mostly wrong? just how wrong was the de landa alphabet? random example is the symbol for 'S' given actually a symbol for a particulular syllable including 'S' (eg SU) or just pure nonsense? (repeat question for other letters).

I'd go with the latter.

Mayan wasn't fully translatable until the 1980's, in fact

Donnally is going on the "translation" of Frenchman Brasseur de Bourbourg.

This gentlemen was the starting point for Le Plongeon's unfortunate "translations" that had the Mayan "Queen Moo" leaving home to start a new colony that later became Ancient Egypt.

BTW, Moo is also the origin of what folks here call "Mu," the supposedly lost Pacific continent.

Turns out some of the "letters" Le Plongeon was translating weren't even letters, weren't even syllables, weren't writing at all, they were actually numbers.

Sad, but still funny even today.

Harte

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 fever. LOL

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)

I guess you missed the fact that I read his document and asked him questions from it.

He failed to respond

"Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced?"

Advanced is in the mind of the writer - there is no evidence for Atlantis being advanced. In the only known document that mentioned its , the T & C. Saying it's "advanced" is just making stuff up in face of the only source you have.

Stating that your evidence of the conspiracy has been covered up by the conspiracy leads one to ask, if it is all covered up - how do you know about it? Kinda circular.

Yonaguni looks like a number of other sites in the world were natural forces have made angular lines. In the land area above the underwater site is more of the same.

The quote on Colin Renfrew, I suspect he just took a net "quote" and added a bit more to it. If he had done proper research and citing he'd have that reference down to a page number and paragraph. He doesn't, until he can provide the page in the book he says he took it from it remains in my mind, "faked".

Pryamids, the 2% error is on the second rebuilding of the pyramid, 2300 years after the first - there is no correlation.

Books, Egyptian and UAE text books also contain that Columbus "discovered the Americas" (actually it was more of an encounter). it seems Rockerfeller controls the books in Arab countries too. My Chinese students also report that Columbus discovered the Americas - damn those Rockfellers are good.....the Chinese haven't heard about Menzies yet.

Originally posted by Harte

Unsubstatiated statement of faith.

Not factual in the least.

No people on either side of the Atlantic shared anything at all about anything even remotely resembling Atlantis, even with each other, much less across the Atlantic.

Even the Greeks and the Egyptians, the two main participants in Plato's tale, never heard of anything like Atlantis.

Harte

are you saying that people on both sides of the atlantic did not have stories about an island called aztlan/atlantis which they escaped from/got destroyed during a battle? or that the atlantes were not people living near the coast where refuges from a sunken atlantis might be expected to reach? or that ...insert lots of similar stuff here?

you don't accept it as fact, I do (well actually I just think it more likely than the mainstream story. In truth I accept very little as "fact" about anything anymore)

Originally posted by Hanslune
I guess you missed the fact that I read his document and asked him questions from it.

He failed to respond

"Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced?"

Advanced is in the mind of the writer - there is no evidence for Atlantis being advanced. In the only known document that mentioned its , the T & C. Saying it's "advanced" is just making stuff up in face of the only source you have.

advanced compared to no organised civilisation at all...I'd say thats pretty advanced. Also I assume he 'connects the dots' using things like the indian texts, but wont speculate any further on that till I've read up to there

Stating that your evidence of the conspiracy has been covered up by the conspiracy leads one to ask, if it is all covered up - how do you know about it? Kinda circular.

only if you assume a perfectly effective all powerful conspiracy (with no reason to leak any of this info). Why you would assume that , I dont know.
Also you seem to assume either they could never be organised enough to do it, or if they could they would be perfect (going from this and previous quotes in other topics) .

Yonaguni looks like a number of other sites in the world were natural forces have made angular lines. In the land area above the underwater site is more of the same.

I probably should look at them (above water examples) then before I comment any further.

The quote on Colin Renfrew, I suspect he just took a net "quote" and added a bit more to it. If he had done proper research and citing he'd have that reference down to a page number and paragraph. He doesn't, until he can provide the page in the book he says he took it from it remains in my mind, "faked".

why you would say that I dont know, he provided you with a link, google provides many others, sure he should have verified the original himself, and yes good scholarly books have proper references, but that doesn't mean he faked it? or do you mean the whole thing is faked (not by him) and its not even in the book?

Pryamids, the 2% error is on the second rebuilding of the pyramid, 2300 years after the first - there is no correlation.

agreed, and I know nothing else about this so I wont say any more than: 1) are we sure of the original size and 2) how are small issues like this relevant? sure he should fix them if wrong.. but... are you missing the woods for the trees?

Books, Egyptian and UAE text books also contain that Columbus "discovered the Americas" (actually it was more of an encounter). it seems Rockerfeller controls the books in Arab countries too. My Chinese students also report that Columbus discovered the Americas - damn those Rockfellers are good.....the Chinese haven't heard about Menzies yet.

1)FT's "ATLANTEAN conspiracy" has been around for a wee little while longer than the latest rockerfellers. Rockerfeller foundation just happens to be the one "in charge of" modifying the educational system of America (see minutes of early meetings, see huge US spending on education for dismal results, blame it on mismanagement or deliberate dumbing down, your choice) to their purposes. Most western nations are at least a little influenced by this (not to mention the conspiracy is supposedly more based in London/Europe than America). as to uae, china etc, well they get their info on us from what we tell them, where else are they gonna get it? If you watch "endgame" then china is apparently a 'very successful' test nation for testing out suppression and control methods, so no surprise they get the bubblegum history (not that they care who was the first european to discover america, they, apparently , got there first... ).

why you would say that I dont know, he provided you with a link, google provides many others, sure he should have verified the original himself, and yes good scholarly books have proper references, but that doesn't mean he faked it? or do you mean the whole thing is faked (not by him) and its not even in the book?

His link is to an unsourced web link - and the quote is different from the one he uses.

{buzzer sounds}

If you watch "endgame" then china is apparently a 'very successful' test nation for testing out suppression and control methods, so no surprise they get the bubblegum history (not that they care who was the first european to discover america, they, apparently , got there first...

Bizarre conspiracy: Russia and Eastern Europe had far superior methods of "control" but the conspiracy let all those nations lose, hey The fascist nations had even better ones and economic growth - why get rid of them?

Compare the world of 1913 to today? Which is more free? .....2008 by far, the colonies are gone, the monarchies are mostly gone, many men and women now have the vote, many people live under the rule of law, trade is more abundant, information flow up by 1000's%

Those rockerfella boys are sure morons when it comes to suppressing people LOL