The Atlantean Conspiracy

reply to post by Skyfloating

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

Something about making up connections where NONE exist comes to mind.

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

Any references? You don't really expect me to take your word for it, do you?

If Atlantis and Punt are the same, why are all the expeditions initiated from the Red Sea instead of the Mediterranean? Why are all the spices, resins, animals and plants native to the area around Eastern Africa?

From your interpretation, I'm forced to assume that you believe in talking snakes too.

cormac

reply to post by Jbird


Mea culpa. I'll watch my passion hence forth.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


If not referring to Atlantis or Eden (which I am allowed to speculate on, mind you), then its at least indicative of a crossover to biblical lore and faintly indicative of some sort of technology (a golden snake making noise, shooting fire which turns people to ashes, etc.).

Originally posted by Jbird

The Atlantean Conspiracy

Well I tried to keep it focused on archaeology!

[edit on 12/4/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 12/4/08 by Hanslune]

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...

"Nit pick"?

Sorry Diablomonic those nit picks were SERIOUS failures of research - and I believe in some cases deliberate lies. They clearly demonstrated that he had no idea what he was talking about. That was confirmed by his inability to defend the material or provide sources.

An epic fail. If you tried to present that "document" in the academic, legal or business world he'd have been laught at and ask to resign/leave his position. [Yes it was that bad]

If he cannot even get the basic things right I have little time for the rest of his "opinions".

reply to post by Hanslune


EXACTLY. because it doesnt follow standard academic protocols, and you disagree with info in it, you are saying it would be effectively suppressed within the academic community and I agree it would, and that YOU WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO..... but this is not for the academic community. Since when are they interested in NWO style conspiracies?

as I see it, it is more an overview of possibilities. Of course you think the whole thing (NWO) is bull#, which it is not, so how you are supposed to give it a fair look I dont know

I dont think I have the right words to explain this to you. I know what you are saying, I just disagree that it is worthless. In the age of google, detailed sources are somewhat less relevant, especially given a topic where "respected" sources are no longer respectable, so no single source would be trustable for any of this. It kind of comes with the territory with illuminati stuff, you have to find many various sources and ways to back up things and even that proves nothing, so why bother making him spend another 3 years to do it?I know you'll disagree with me on that one, be that as it may.

Howdy Diablomonic

It isn't worthless or worthy, it is just plain bad work, it's in error, it is not correct, the information is not truthful, it is an X parrot. [in regards to those portions dealing with archaeology and history]

[edit on 12/4/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Skyfloating

which I am allowed to speculate on

Yes, you can speculate to your hearts content. It's when you present your speculations as STATEMENTS OF FACT that I take exception. You always present things that way, not as "Here's what I think, believe, etc."

If it were just you, I wouldn't care. But some people reading your posts, because you're a MOD, will assume you know what you are talking about. That isn't necessarily true. Maybe you should take that into account when writing.

its at least indicative of a crossover to biblical lore

I will accept that as a possibility, although considering Papyrus 1115 was written c. 2200 BC and Abraham is believed to have lived c. 2000 BC and there is no firm indication of a Hebrew/Egyptian connection prior to Abraham, not sure how that indication can be true.

faintly indicative of some sort of technology

Possibly, but no way to prove it one way or the other.

cormac

.....or imagination

People in the past did have dreams, hallucinations and nightmares - just like we do now. They even had intoxicants. They also had heat stroke, despair, fevers and dehydration.

All of which can cause delusions in some cases.

I've had several people I've worked with become delusional due to illness, stress, drinking, drugs and weather - they see and believe strange things.

just another piece of speculation.

I'm checking a piece of data



[edit on 13/4/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


no ee's not, ee's just pinin for da fjords...

honestly though, I disagree. I ASSUME there will be some/ even many errors in it, because of the topic at hand . Consider the word disinfo. information deliberately put out there to confuse. So trying to make a summary document of all aspects of the "atlantean conspiracy", is going to accidentally include disinfo, if the topic at hand (worldwide organised conspiracy) is true. No matter how careful or not, he will be suckered, you will be suckered, I will be suckered, something I believe (as opposed to the many things I comment on here which I merely think may be possible) is pretty much guaranteed to be disinfo (if there is a conspiracy). SO all we can hope to expect is that when he finds out for sure IN HIS OWN OPINION that something is false, he corrects it.



look at it this way: if there is no conspiracy, there is no point writing the book. Since He and others (including me) are fairly certain there is one (I give it ~98% chance of existing, but any further details than that I wouldn't be so sure of ), he decided to write a book about it.

By writing the book, he is working on the assumption of its possibility, therefore he has to take into account its repercussions. Namely:

- all info is suspect, no matter how "legitimate"
- official sources are no better (and in some cases worse) than unofficial ones
- real info is likely to be claimed to be fraud
- fraudulent info is likely to be claimed to be real
- often the only real way to "prove" (used very loosely) some of this stuff, unless they slip up in a major way, is by weight of often circumstantial evidence, coincidences and ties.
- with things like yonaguni, where people have varying thoughts on it, the best approach assuming the possibility of a conspiracy is to show the images (although preferably with comparison natural formations) and let people make their own minds up.

ah bugger it, I think I've made my point. whether you agree is up to you, but I think if I haven't convinced you yet, I'm not going to.

cheers

Diablomonic, you're awesome. And Hanslune, you're an agent (which isn't awesome).

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic– Review This Link.


[edit on 13-4-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

considering Papyrus 1115 was written c. 2200 BC and Abraham is believed to have lived c. 2000 BC and there is no firm indication of a Hebrew/Egyptian connection prior to Abraham, not sure how that indication can be true.

Ease up cormac. Just because you disagree with me and what I represent generally, doesnt mean that everything I say is worthless.

The egyptian story of a serpent in a beautiful garden IS very similar to the biblical story.

Sometimes I get the impression debunking everything I say has become habitual to you and distorts your ability to look at things objectively.

If you think Im wrong at anything I say, remember:

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile

reply to post by Skyfloating


I didn't say everything you said was worthless. I said:

not sure how that indication can be true.

And you are complaining? I try to throw you a bone and you're pissing and moaning because it ain't big enough.

cormac


[edit on 13-4-2008 by cormac mac airt]

[edit on 13-4-2008 by cormac mac airt]

Must be tired, stupid EDIT won't work right.

I meant to add to the last post.

I will accept that as a possibility

See, I did TRY to throw you a bone.

cormac

Wink if you think Hanslune, Harte, and Cormac are the same person. Nah, I'm kidding fellas. I know you're just regular guys defending the opinions you believe to be true, right? How could one possibly think otherwise?

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Wink if you think Hanslune, Harte, and Cormac are the same person.

Nah, I'm kidding fellas. I know you're just regular guys defending the opinions you believe to be true, right? How could one possibly think otherwise?

Well...if you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist who sees connections everywhere, especially where they don't exist, and thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be working for a nefarious organisation tasked with suppressing the truth to further an evil, though not clearly specified, agenda and who's ego has got so out of control that they think that said nefarious organisation would spend time and resources employing people to disagree with their unsubstantiated pseudo-historical drivel on obscure discussion boards

This post was brought to you by Stop the Full Stop - the campaign to end full stops

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Diablomonic, you're awesome. And Hanslune, you're an agent (which isn't awesome).

Why don't you answer the criticism of your work honestly instead of making up silly execuses and making baseless claims?

Here is what a real person interested in your subject would do. They would correct the errors and move on - why aren't you doing that?

Oh I noted that you got the claim about presidents and royalty wrong too.

Diablomonic - you're thinking to much, yes there is legitimate data in the world. If you think everything is part of the conspiracy there really isn't much left to talk about is there? You are reaching the philosophical point of "nothing is real", unfortunately once you reach that point there not much point in hanging around. LOL

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Wink if you think Hanslune, Harte, and Cormac are the same person.

Nah, I'm kidding fellas. I know you're just regular guys defending the opinions you believe to be true, right? How could one possibly think otherwise?

Well...if you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist who sees connections everywhere, especially where they don't exist, and thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be working for a nefarious organisation tasked with suppressing the truth to further an evil, though not clearly specified, agenda and who's ego has got so out of control that they think that said nefarious organisation would spend time and resources employing people to disagree with their unsubstantiated pseudo-historical drivel on obscure discussion boards

This post was brought to you by Stop the Full Stop - the campaign to end full stops

Well said Fr. LD, I was just going to say if you think Ft is a paranoid..... nah I think I'll stay at a higher moral level, LOL

Besides Harte is the intelligent one, Cormac has the wit and I just cannot spell right - but am better looking.

reply to post by freight tomsen


Hanslune, Harte, cormac and a few others have been patrolling this thread since a long time and make sure anything remotely alternative is quickly refuted.

But I tell you what: They have sure helped me to sharpen my pen. I also plan writing a book on atlantis/fringe-science and I would have never ever researched certain stuff, come up with certain stuff and trashed certain stuff without their constant critisism. By the time Im ready to write the book I will only have the very core of irrefutable information in the book.

So in this sense, the constant mainstream-onslaught is invaluable.