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.

 

Is Atlantis a metaphor for a great civilzation lost in a superstorm?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Hans and the copy and paste republuc gang. The only quasi religion is your belief that you know what is going on in the world of science.

What are Exeter and Goethe digging this season Hans? All you top archaeologists talk umongst yourselves. A man who talks the talk like you should know but you don't. Hans doesn't even know an archaeologist yet he knows everything every archaeologist in the world knows. That is a mental condition.

You say science knows of no vanished civilizations? That might make you look smart with your friends at the mall but you are incorrect. You are spreading lies and it shows just how much you don't belong in here. Why does Hans have soo many friends after sooo much effort here? Because he is almost always wrong when questioned and people don't bother to listen.


who built this big brains? or point me to another like it
google

who built this natchos? exeter and goethe don't know
google

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Parta]




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Parta, your arrogance and disrespect is not becoming of you.

There are many thousands of archaeological sites across Europe which have not yet been properly excavated. In many cases it is only through aerial survey that we are becoming aware of them. They may be medieval, roman or pre-roman. But that does not mean that any of them are the remains of a 'vanished' civilisation.

And quite obviously, archaeology and science can not be aware of any 'vanished' civilisation that has left no traces, can they?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Parta, your arrogance and disrespect is not becoming of you.

There are many thousands of archaeological sites across Europe which have not yet been properly excavated. In many cases it is only through aerial survey that we are becoming aware of them. They may be medieval, roman or pre-roman. But that does not mean that any of them are the remains of a 'vanished' civilisation.

And quite obviously, archaeology and science can not be aware of any 'vanished' civilisation that has left no traces, can they?


oh thousands huh? then you can point me to another iarcuri or another pen like at alibunar [well of the ali]

in europe usually after a very short period of digging, they know exactly what the site is. iarcuri has no analogue. alibunar has no analogue.

arrogance? stopping you on the list of misanthrope from spreading shiite. power to the people not the quasi historians



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta

oh thousands huh? then you can point me to another iarcuri


Well that all depends on what the Iarcuri earthworks are - as they are one of the many thousands of archeaological sites across Europe yet to be properly excavated, we don't know. There are certainly many bronze age settlements in the region but on the other hand I've seen it suggested the earthworks date to the war with the Ottomans in the 18th century.

Can't find anything on Alibunar though.

But in any case, this is all taking the thread off subject. What is your point? That the presence of unexcavated settlements proves Atlantis was real?

btw this is one of my favourite unexcavated sites in England:

Grimspound

It's a neolithic village - the remains of the houses can still be seen. But who knows who lived there? Maybe they were Atlanteans eh?


[edit on 22-5-2009 by Essan]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Parta

oh thousands huh? then you can point me to another iarcuri


Well that all depends on what the Iarcuri earthworks are - as they are one of the many thousands of archeaological sites across Europe yet to be properly excavated, we don't know. There are certainly many bronze age settlements in the region but on the other hand I've seen it suggested the earthworks date to the war with the Ottomans in the 18th century.

Can't find anything on Alibunar though.

But in any case, this is all taking the thread off subject. What is your point? That the presence of unexcavated settlements proves Atlantis was real?

btw this is one of my favourite unexcavated sites in England:

Grimspound

It's a neolithic village - the remains of the houses can still be seen. But who knows who lived there? Maybe they were Atlanteans eh?


[edit on 22-5-2009 by Essan]


Show me another middle bronze / early iron age city in europe that is 1800 hectares with wall structures 100m wide.

ottomans... funny... thats from unexplained mysteries. good source. i read the reports from the site by exeter, goethe and uvt and they don't mention ottomans. they say things like "we will be here for the foreseeable future" and "the walls have no analogue"

what would this mean to atlantis?
well in egyptian mythology there should be a large rectangular enclosure nearby the circles of ra in the tuat. all on the freshwater nun.

in persian mythology there should be a rectangular vara near the circular vara that was destroyed by the catastrope. all on the freshwater vourukasa

in sumerian there should be the rectangular apsu nearby the bolts of enki that bar the sea. all on the freshwater sea apsu

in greek there should be a great rectangular pen of geryon nearby the flooded circles of atlantis. all on oceanos potamos

of course iarcuri matches homer and troy especially when you put your great freshwater sea filling in the carpathian basin.

deny ignorance.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta

Show me another middle bronze / early iron age city in europe that is 1800 hectares with wall structures 100m wide.


Athens? Thebes?

Not sure how big they were in those days. Plenty of other big settlements. Cities even. Regardless of which, so what? Even is Iarcuri is a bronze age settlement - or perhaps administrative/trading centre for the surrounding settlements based on it's size and layout? - it was built thousands of years after Plato said Atlantis sank and even longer after there was any large lake in the Carparthian basin. It also appears to have utterly failed to have sunk beneath the sea in an earthquake.


Iarcuri may well be evidence of a large thriving bronze age society in that part of Europe. But there were larger thriving bronze age societies elsewhere in Europe too. Maybe Iarcuri even traded with them? But don't deride a historical heritage by pretending it was a mythological fiction.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Essan]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Parta

Show me another middle bronze / early iron age city in europe that is 1800 hectares with wall structures 100m wide.


Athens? Thebes?

Not sure how big they were in those days. Plenty of other big settlements. Cities even. Regardless of which, so what? Even is Iarcuri is a bronze age settlement - or perhaps administrative/trading centre for the surrounding settlements based on it's size and layout? - it was built thousands of years after Plato said Atlantis sank and even longer after there was any large lake in the Carparthian basin. It also appears to have utterly failed to have sunk beneath the sea in an earthquake.


Iarcuri may well be evidence of a large thriving bronze age society in that part of Europe. But there were larger thriving bronze age societies elsewhere in Europe too. Maybe Iarcuri even traded with them? But don't deride a historical heritage by pretending it was a mythological fiction.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Essan]


you keep saying there are lots so show me some. get to know what is actually very large and stop talking out your a s s. using the maidencastle standard, its a 500 000 person city.

iarcuri is as big as rome and the colesseum can sit on one of its walls. lets not forget troys linkage to atlantis.

essan you sound like you suffer from the mercedes benz funded troy marketing program. are you? silly.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by Parta]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Your rudeness will get you nowhere.

Iarcuri is a series of earthworks - nothing more - admittedly covering an impressively large area. These may simply have been enclosures for cattle or horses ..... there is no evidence at present that the structure represents an actual city, and certainly not that it rivalled the likes of Memphis or Knossus.

Similar (though smaller) earthworks in Britain often indicated a meeting place and IMO it's quite possible that that it what Iarcuri was - where local tribes would gather perhaps to mete out justice, discuss trade etc.

I am quite sure you will disagree with my opinion. And if and when you are able to provide empirical evidence showing my hypothesis to be wrong then obviously I will be happy to admit it



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Your rudeness will get you nowhere.

Iarcuri is a series of earthworks - nothing more - admittedly covering an impressively large area. These may simply have been enclosures for cattle or horses ..... there is no evidence at present that the structure represents an actual city, and certainly not that it rivalled the likes of Memphis or Knossus.

Similar (though smaller) earthworks in Britain often indicated a meeting place and IMO it's quite possible that that it what Iarcuri was - where local tribes would gather perhaps to mete out justice, discuss trade etc.

I am quite sure you will disagree with my opinion. And if and when you are able to provide empirical evidence showing my hypothesis to be wrong then obviously I will be happy to admit it


exeter and goethe tend to camp out at cattle pens that have no signifigance. who says it has to rival those cities? would troy have rivalled those cities? troy was only what 3 or 4 generations old?

your "no evidence" means you can't find anything on the internet. how shallow and simple.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Wasn't there a popular 19th Century book about a lost continent in the Pacific that was on even shakier grounds?

Poseidonis was it? The name Donnelly comes to mind.

Maybe it was in Carpathia.

Mike

"Atlantis - the Antidiluvian World" by Ignatius Donnelly.

You can find the entire text posted at Sacred-Texts.com

Harte



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by mmiichael
Wasn't there a popular 19th Century book about a lost continent in the Pacific that was on even shakier grounds?

Poseidonis was it? The name Donnelly comes to mind.

Maybe it was in Carpathia.

Mike

"Atlantis - the Antidiluvian World" by Ignatius Donnelly.

You can find the entire text posted at Sacred-Texts.com

Harte


Romanian National Geological Institute November 2009 Athens
"Atlantis has been found"

does a math teacher plus donnelly equal a number greater than a european union science institute plus data? i hope not.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Ranger23
There's that huge mound off Japan, and many other man-made structures.

"That huge mound..." is a natural formation. Please relate any "other man-made structures..." that have been considered to "defy understanding."

AFAIK, none exist.

Harte



Don't all civilizations live on natural formations though?

Is not the United States a Natural Formation.

And so too Europe and Asia and the world.

Would that not then be the same for that natural formation off japan where people probably lived?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Ranger23
 


No, because 'The Coming Global Superstorm' (on which the film 'The Day After Tomorrow' was based) is fiction. The authors completely misunderstand basic atmospheric physics and ignore all evidence on the subject. Their proposed shut-down of the gulf stream would, for example, based on the last time it happened, result in the average temperature in Europe falling by between 1c and 2c. Which is roughly what it's risen by in the past 30 years.

So worse case scenario: a 1970s climate ..... !

As for Atlantis, Atlantis was specifically a bronze age culture that was defeated in battle by a Greek bronze age culture 6,000 years before the start of the bronze age. Anything else is not Atlantis. And since there is no evidence anywhere on the planet - let alone Europe - of a bronze age culture existing 6,000 years before the start of the bronze age there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis. QED.




True. However, Lack of evidence does not indicate lack of existence.

Ponder that for a while.

You do make a good point however. but I'm just adding to the convo.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
I think Crete was added into other lost cities and Plato made it into a entertaining tale. He may also have been reporting an Egyptian made myth.

If it existed at all it will probably be found to have been a much smaller place than Plato stated.



I find the term myth funny. We have no proof that myths are actually just myths and not truths, yet we perceive them to be just fake when they could be real.


As much as we have no evidence things are myth, we have less evidence that they are not myths.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 


So what do you expect me to do? Jump in my personal helicopter, fly over and undertake a 5 year archaeological dig?

Or, better still, since your the one making the assertions, maybe you could go out and do some excavations and come back in 2014 with your results proving me wrong?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Ranger23
 


As for Atlantis, Atlantis was specifically a bronze age culture that was defeated in battle by a Greek bronze age culture 6,000 years before the start of the bronze age. Anything else is not Atlantis. And since there is no evidence anywhere on the planet - let alone Europe - of a bronze age culture existing 6,000 years before the start of the bronze age there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis. QED.




True. However, Lack of evidence does not indicate lack of existence.

Ponder that for a while.

You do make a good point however. but I'm just adding to the convo.


but his argument bears no water. first he suggests that all the events happened over a two week period when plato clearly says there is a span of time. and bronze why bronze? there is copper casting in the carpathian basin at least by 5500bc... shortly after the great catastrophe that dried up their freshwater sea

in greece at franchiti cave you find in the mesolithic period a great and sudden intrusion of cows. then the cows go away completely very soon afterwards. the cows don't come back till the neolithic package arrives.

where were the cows at the end of the ice age? studies show that there was only one european population of maybe a few thousand individuals somewhere. odd that franchiti got some. maybe had an "in" with someone.

i mention cows because the story clearly describes a disagreement over cows vs corn. poseidon and his salt spring equals aurochs vs agriculture of athena.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Parta
 


So what do you expect me to do? Jump in my personal helicopter, fly over and undertake a 5 year archaeological dig?

Or, better still, since your the one making the assertions, maybe you could go out and do some excavations and come back in 2014 with your results proving me wrong?


i was there 4 months [or 2.667 months post execution] after the revolution. this time is gravy.

maybe just sit back and watch what happens. i imagine no matter who your grandfather is you might get somewhat excited if someone starts providing some scientific answers... especially someone who through politics etc has hidden so much from the rest of us.




[edit on 22-5-2009 by Parta]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 


A good summary of the discoveries made at Franchthi here:

www.mnsu.edu...


btw the reason Atlantis is described as a bronze age culture is because Plato described them as being in all technological respects identical with that of the Greeks in Plato's own time - which was the Bronze Age



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Parta
 


A good summary of the discoveries made at Franchthi here:

www.mnsu.edu...


btw the reason Atlantis is described as a bronze age culture is because Plato described them as being in all technological respects identical with that of the Greeks in Plato's own time - which was the Bronze Age




my summary come from dartmouth... is this a wizzing contest?

defining thus on "chariots"? wheeled toys again by 5500bc along with the copper weapons.



edit : i have tried to put in the external text but the system seems to be rejecting that. the data is at projects dartmouth and might look like this

(ca. 20,000 - 8300 b.c.)
The period is divided into three phases on the basis of major shifts in the relative frequencies of the various animal families (genera) attested among the faunal remains (animal bones):

(A) 70% equid (probably wild ass), ca. 30% red deer; also pig, hare, tortoise, birds.

(B) 40% equid, 25% red deer, 25% large bovid (i.e. cow), 10% large caprine (wild goat?); also a few small fish; fox and mole at the top of this level.

(C) 70% red deer, 20% or less equid, ca. 10% pig, no large bovid, sporadic caprine at 10% or less; voles appear.

which i can put in


[edit on 22-5-2009 by Parta]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Ranger23
There's that huge mound off Japan, and many other man-made structures.

"That huge mound..." is a natural formation. Please relate any "other man-made structures..." that have been considered to "defy understanding."

AFAIK, none exist.

Harte



Don't all civilizations live on natural formations though?

Is not the United States a Natural Formation.

And so too Europe and Asia and the world.

Would that not then be the same for that natural formation off japan where people probably lived?

Sure.
But that was not what was claimed:


and many other man-made structures



Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
True. However, Lack of evidence does not indicate lack of existence.

Ponder that for a while.

It may not indicate lack of existence, but it is evidence of lack of existence.

Ponder my sig for a while.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join