It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Atlantean Conspiracy

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
If you have the time and option to do so may I suggest becoming a geologist. With a specialization is ocean bottom research. If Atlantis existed that is where it will be found.


[smile] I would be a physicist - if I could wrap my mind around the squigglies. I have dabbled in geology, and that is why I saw the pic and felt it very much could be explained geologically.

But science always wants you to have some of those squigglies (some more than others, granted, but still...some) and they always stood in my way. [sigh]




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

we are in a forum about conspiracies in a section about ancient and lost civilizations, in a thread with the word conspiracy in the title, about a book written about (among other things) the NWO conspiracy, and how it may relate to ancient and lost civilizations more specifically atlantis....

What more suitable place do you want?

You keep mentioning how this conspiracy is impossible, illogical yada yada, yet you give examples of "proof" of this ridiculous to any serious NWO researcher, such as being more free now than ever. I wonder If I am free to NOT pay for a bunch of murdering scumbags to kill people in my name? I guess if I'm willing to live like a bum or go to jail for tax evasion...thats a kind of freedom, isn't it?.


Put it this way, your argument is akin to a YEC saying there is no fossil record supporting evolution, therefore evolution is a lie: There is, just because the YEC doesn't believe it exists does not make it so.
Just because you don't believe in the NWO and think you are free, does not mean you can feign ignorance (*) of the supposed workings of the NWO to support your claims they don't exist.

Now I am all for keeping NWO discussion away from this part of the forum as much as possible, IF you concede the possibility it exists and let that be a consideration in the discussion. Otherwise it would be like you trying to convince me of the existence of dinosaurs with me denying the process of fossilization and saying: if they exist, why is there not hard living proof of them, not this so called bones in rock rubbish, I've never seen a real dinosaur...



(*) its either real or fake, but your recent posts are most definitely ignorant of the main purpose/method of the NWO takeover



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 





The legend of atlantis is ~12KYA.


The legend of Atlantis as told by one person, Plato, is alleged to be c.12,000 years old.

My point being that the supposed association of Atlantis with Aztlan is in error, despite what Donnelly and those who believe his writings would like to believe.




as to RS of sphinx fame, he did not say they are purely natural, that is a lie, (from what I remember of the doco where I saw him talking about it) he said he believed they were likely natural shapes modified and augmented by humans.


Taken from:

www.robertschoch.net...




I became convinced that presently, at the surface, natural wave and tidal action is responsible for eroding and removing the sandstones in such a way that very regular step-like and terrace-like structures remain. The more I compared the natural, but highly regular, weathering and erosional features observed on the modern coast of the island with the structural characteristics of the Yonaguni Monument, the more I became convinced that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes at work. On the surface I also found depressions and cavities forming naturally that look exactly like the supposed "post holes" that some researchers have noticed on the underwater Yonaguni Monument.


Okay, so where does he say modified or augmented?




of course since you are quoting him, here, I assume you now believe him to be right about the sphinx? (just joshing ya)


The original dating of Schoch was closer to the 10,000 BC period. I can at least meet him part way, as I believe the ORIGINAL sphinx (with lions head) may be a little older than currently dated. The one with a human head I believe to be from Khafre's time. Even Schoch's dating has decreased over time. Last I read, he was saying somewhere between 6000 and 7000 BC.

My point to Skyfloating is that when it comes to the opinion of a geologist or a diver, I will take the geologist nearly every time.




the "fringe" as you call it looks with their own eyes and makes up their own mind.


Not when they buy anything people like Berlitz, Donnelly, Von Daniken and some others have to say hook, line and sinker.

cormac



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


By context I figured out what YEC implied, but I'm struggling to pull out the acronym. I'm pretty up on the acronyms used, but this is one I have missed.

Good post, by the way. I agree with you, and wonder why people persist in denying all the well researched (and some not so well, but that is true in everything) evidence that is out there and adds up so clearly.

It must be seriously outside their comfort zone.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
[

Taken from:

www.robertschoch.net...


I became convinced that presently, at the surface, natural wave and tidal action is responsible for eroding and removing the sandstones in such a way that very regular step-like and terrace-like structures remain. The more I compared the natural, but highly regular, weathering and erosional features observed on the modern coast of the island with the structural characteristics of the Yonaguni Monument, the more I became convinced that the Yonaguni Monument is primarily the result of natural geological and geomorphological processes at work. On the surface I also found depressions and cavities forming naturally that look exactly like the supposed "post holes" that some researchers have noticed on the underwater Yonaguni Monument.


Okay, so where does he say modified or augmented?


apologies, I must have been going on outdated information (I'm sure I remember him saying he thought augmented natural formation or something like that...?)





The original dating of Schoch was closer to the 10,000 BC period. I can at least meet him part way, as I believe the ORIGINAL sphinx (with lions head) may be a little older than currently dated. The one with a human head I believe to be from Khafre's time. Even Schoch's dating has decreased over time. Last I read, he was saying somewhere between 6000 and 7000 BC.

My point to Skyfloating is that when it comes to the opinion of a geologist or a diver, I will take the geologist nearly every time.


fair enough.
(keep something in mind though, just because the originator of a theory modifies or changes his/her opinion, does not invalidate it, nor does his/her version of the theory "limit" later expansions. There is no such thing as an infallible expert/source



the "fringe" as you call it looks with their own eyes and makes up their own mind.


Not when they buy anything people like Berlitz, Donnelly, Von Daniken and some others have to say hook, line and sinker.

cormac

agreed, though I do not (knowingly...) do that (I tend to doubt a lot more than I believe, I just also apply that to "mainstream" and "accepted" knowledge.)







posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Sorry, YEC = young earth creationist

figured it was a common acronym, guess I was wrong.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


I haunt other areas, primarily 9/11 stuff, so YEC is not used so much. But this subject caught my eye and I started reading. Thanks for clearing that up for me. And as I expected, the context gave the concept away. [smile]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 





(keep something in mind though, just because the originator of a theory modifies or changes his/her opinion, does not invalidate it, nor does his/her version of the theory "limit" later expansions. There is no such thing as an infallible expert/source


True enough, on either side. The flipside of this is that it doesn't VALIDATE his/her opinion either.

People like Berlitz, Donnelly and Von Daniken feed/have fed off the common persons ignorance of the subject and make/made extremely large amounts of money doing so. Every time I hear ideas like the supposed Aztlan/Atlantis connection I just want to strangle the people passing it along.

cormac



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Howdy Diablomonic

You will note that I didn't engage FT on the conspiracy portion of his document - I engaged the archaeological portion. Did you note that?

There is no NWO conspiracy, however you seem to be of the ilk that says basically, "anything that happens is because of the conspiracy", using that method of reasoning everything always fits. All the contradiction, silly stuff, and illogical stuff fits right in.

Okay lets try a test of your conspiracy aptitude:

Explain why the NWO conspiracy did the following:

[conspiracy mode on]

1. After conning the US people into agreeing to a US invasion of Iraqi - why didn't they arrange for weapons of mass destruction to be found there?

2. Since the NWO was behind the planes hiting the WTC why weren't the hijackers ID as being Iraqis and Afghanistani (since that is were the NWO wanted the invasion to go to)?

3. Explain the point of the NWO allowing the existence of the internet and its use to expose their evil plans.

[conspiracy mode off]

Oh and for grins and giggles tell us what there two top secret objectives are - by the way how do you know them?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
If anybody answers Hanslune McAgent's mis-info questions, you just bring a shimmer of light to his windowless room. And if anyone has read the thread this far without actually downloading the book, please do so. Hanslune: you're on the losing side buddy, and it's going to be difficult to live with yourself when your masters fall.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Howdy FT

I would recommend you actually learn something about:

Archaeology
Research skills
Debate technique

You're just a sciolist who spouts a lot of vainiloquence and tries to hide his inabilities by crying conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
When I see stairs and straight lines and worked surfaces underwater I assume artificial build, regardless of what Schoch says or doesnt say.


That's because you're not a geologist and are unaware of how such structures can occur naturally (similar formations are visible on the island of Yonaguni btw)

The stairs, for example, have all different sized steps - odd for a manamde structure?

And are these manmade?




Natural rock formations can and do have the appearance of steps and manmade construction.

Besides which, even as some suggest, the Yonaguni structure was partially altered bu humans, so what? Such activity was well within the capability of the neolithic peoples known to have been living in the area when it was last above sea level.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Diablomonic

You will note that I didn't engage FT on the conspiracy portion of his document - I engaged the archaeological portion. Did you note that?


yes I note that, but I dont see how you can truly separate them, if trying to debate with FT. Sure you can nit pick errors (and certainly I agree you should point any out you see), but your missing the main portion of his book...



There is no NWO conspiracy, however you seem to be of the ilk that says basically, "anything that happens is because of the conspiracy", using that method of reasoning everything always fits. All the contradiction, silly stuff, and illogical stuff fits right in.

Okay lets try a test of your conspiracy aptitude:

Explain why the NWO conspiracy did the following:

[conspiracy mode on]

1. After conning the US people into agreeing to a US invasion of Iraqi - why didn't they arrange for weapons of mass destruction to be found there?


1) why would they need to? have they failed in their plan to get american permanent bases over there? to (speculating here) spend ~trillion on millitary spending? to get the public to hate those horrible muslim people over there? to keep the war going for a long time? Why complicate things with faked evidence when they dont need to?

2) further speculation: they knew there actually was WMD cos they sold them to saddamn in the first place... and didnt want to find them with big made in usa sticker on the side


3) this applies to many of your comments: they (NWO) are both arrogant and deliberately testing us, by monitoring sites like this etc, to see how many "aware" people are out there, just how far they can push us, what it takes to make us actually rise up. If we are right in thinking they want martial law and 90+% humanity killed (Georgia guidestones etc), they either need a global catastrophe or a rebellion of aware people, who they can then lock up as "crazy extremeists" while the sheeple remain unaware.



2. Since the NWO was behind the planes hiting the WTC why weren't the hijackers ID as being Iraqis and Afghanistani (since that is were the NWO wanted the invasion to go to)?


1) again: why bother trying to fake iraqi/afghani terrorists when the public apparently cant tell the difference, and the saudi ones where the ones they had on hand... Did you happen to notice that they DID invade afghanistan and iraq? for no apparent reason (afghanistan was happy to release binforgotten to a neutral nation for trial, if shown some proof of guilt, iraq had nothing to do with any of it)? They dont care if it makes sense, they have the public so stupified that we can invade a nation apparently to get this boogie man binladen and 7 years later, we have apparently forgotten entirely why we went there in the first place?
(also of course many of these questions can be answered with: How clear of a trail do you want them to leave?)




3. Explain the point of the NWO allowing the existence of the internet and its use to expose their evil plans.


1) "they" are trying quite hard to be able to censor the web, using the "think of the children" line. Just look at all the attempts in australia, which no one I know agrees with.
2) look up who owns facebook, myspace, look up behaviour of google, microsoft etc. Why destroy the net when it is the best method for tracking dissidents ever invented? find a possible dissenter? look up his/her myspace...BAM you know many of the poeple he/she may have talked to about it.
3)this site is a perfect testing ground to see what real info has leaked and what disinfo works. Ie if the people here appear to be accepting a disinfo leak to cover something up, it can then be tried on the rest of the world.

4) basically same answer as before: sure a whole bunch of internet nerds (me included) think we know that they blew up the twin towers. What the *&^% are we gonna do about it? especially with all the disinfo oging round meaning any stroy we try to break may have false info in it

[conspiracy mode off]


Oh and for grins and giggles tell us what there two top secret objectives are - by the way how do you know them?



at a guess:
world governement
microchipped controlled shrunken population



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Those structures immediatly look natural to me, not at all like the Taiwanese/Japanese underwater structures Hanslune kindly posted a map of.


To all: What would be so bad about manmade structures underwater? Why rule it out / dismiss it so quickly?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
To the OP (FYI):

Ive posted an earlier atlantis account than platos at the bottom of the page in this thread.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
1. After conning the US people into agreeing to a US invasion of Iraqi - why didn't they arrange for weapons of mass destruction to be found there?

2. Since the NWO was behind the planes hiting the WTC why weren't the hijackers ID as being Iraqis and Afghanistani (since that is were the NWO wanted the invasion to go to)?

3. Explain the point of the NWO allowing the existence of the internet and its use to expose their evil plans.


I think the thing you need to understand is that They are audacious, lazy, and so completely secure in their "superiority" that They are sure these small details are no issue...and, in fact...They were right.

They got us into an eternal war while stripping the Constitution/Bill of Rights of any meaning, while giving Fuhrer power to the Pres. They have been "borrowing" from the "Fed" in record amounts IN OUR NAME to pay defense contracts, and have now handed us over as indentured slaves to this private corporation.

They have over 600 prisons empty that hold 20,000 to 2 million. WTF do we need with prison facilities, with rail cars that shackle 150 humans at a time, that can house TWENTY MILLION at least? To put that in perspective, the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. We have over 25% of the world's incarcerated with 4-5% of the world's population.

How many do we incarcerate now? TWO million. WHAT can we possibly expect that would lead us to need to incarcerate TEN TIMES that many?

No NWO. Pshaw.


Oh and for grins and giggles tell us what there two top secret objectives are - by the way how do you know them?


They laugh because They can do one thing and tell us it's another - and we believe Them. 9/11 is a case in point.

Believe me. They rely on the inculcated view that Our Government is interested only in our best interests. That conspiracies always fail and are a minor issue in the overall affairs of humans. That conspiracies fail because there are going to be whistleblowers.

Thing is, we don't know how many whistleblowers had "heart attacks" before they could blow the whistle, or did so soon after, with a containment or hiding of the information.

You can be assured that if someone came forth and admitted complicity in 9/11, the news services would not carry the story.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   



The Atlantean Conspiracy




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

To all: What would be so bad about manmade structures underwater? Why rule it out / dismiss it so quickly?


In the case of Yonaguni - absolutely nothing. As I said before, there is evidence neolithic people were living in the area when it was above sea level,no reason why they couldn't have used/altered it.

The problem is the "ancient technological civilisation" folk who bring it up as evidence when it's nothing of the sort (bit like saying Stonehenge proves we had nuclear power in Britain 5,000 years ago)



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





To all: What would be so bad about manmade structures underwater? Why rule it out / dismiss it so quickly?


Absolutely nothing, if evidence stronger than suppositions, allegations, personal interpretations were presented. If evidence like I've mentioned before, i.e., chisel marks, saw marks, rope marks, tools of any kind, other indications of human alteration were present, then you would have a good argument.





Ive posted an earlier atlantis account than platos at the bottom of the page in this thread


From Papyrus 1115, in the words of the serpent who is doing the talking:




As for me, I am prince of the land of Punt,


You do realize that Ancient Egyptians knew where Punt was, along the Red Sea, south of Egypt. How does that equate with Atlantis, in the Atlantic Ocean, west?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Someday you´ll learn to read stuff without using school-learned interpretation.

He reports going to an island far, far away, not to the red sea. He reports of a distant land of plenty (atlantis, garden of eden) in which serpent-gods and their children rule. Apparently they even use a device that can throw flames and turn people into ashes.

Zero interpretation, pure text.


"The land of punt" was used by ancient egyptian language to describe all sorts of fabled and legendary places.



[edit on 12-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join