Introduction to Atlantology, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 44 times


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 03:25 PM by Harte
Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to
post by Harte



Well hear you go Harte three connections based on Egypt to Atlantis. I hope you have your fork and knife; get ready to eat some words.

This is one of the first times Atlantis is ever mentioned, and wouldn't you know it says the first story ever told was originally voiced in Egypt.

In Plato's book, Timaeus, a character named Kritias tells an account of Atlantis that has been in his family for generations. According to the character, the story was originally told to his ancestor, Solon, by a priest during Solon's visit to Egypt.

Plato and Atlantis


Here is yet another reference...
It is not an easy question to resolve. Scientists naturally look askance at psychic information – if, that is, they are even aware of it. So, the authors observe, the readings were not used to guide archaeologic explorations over past decades. Consider, too: Turn back the clock beyond 4,000 B.C. and most scholars, especially those in Cayce’s day, believe it was a time of primitive cultures. The readings, however, give accounts of Atlanteans, described as a technologically advanced people, having migrated to Egypt – and other locales – over 12,000 years ago. Also, “the readings mention [human] ancestors as far back as 10 million years ago, and high civilizations 200,000 years ago.” Remains unearthed in recent years and carbon dated are adding more credence to the psychic revelations.

Atlantis - Edgar Cayce

And one final url, with the connections between Ireland, Egypt, and Atlantis and this one has to many quotes to put just on so please read the whole thing.
Egypt, Ireland, and Atlantis

Now Harte since I know you didn't bother to go to google and do the smart thing and look for something connecting the two before you bashed my post; I'm awaiting your apology. Otherwise I'm awaiting the same ignorant answers.

You have got to be kidding, right?

You think I haven't read Plato?

Look, here's what you claimed, in your own words:

Now I understand the Sahara could be the place where they were located due to the fact of Egytian scripts that mention an atlantian empire.


So now, for your so-called "Egyptian scripts," you offer a piece of Classical Greek literature, a dream sequence from a sleeping conman, and a website with some modern dude's opinion?

Apologize for what, showing how casually and carelessly you opt to post a lie?

I don't think so.

Now, kindly come up with your claimed "Egyptian scripts that mention an atlantian empire" and maybe you'll have something valid to whine about.

Otherwise, accept that you've been shown to be, at the very best, a person willing to completely mischaracterize what facts there are that are known about the ancient world in order to advance some internalized agenda you have for wanting to "belong" among ignoramuses that ignore what they choose in order to believe what they want, i.e. "Atlantologists."

Harte



[edit on 18-11-2008 by Byrd]


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 03:26 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by merka



Which is why I suggest using "Atlantis" as a loose umbrella term for hypothetical pre-historic civilizations that were not on a stone-age level of development.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:06 PM by PinealGlandThoth

Sorry no, if proven it would be a major world shaking discovery. To be blunt you don't take the time and effort to prove this because you know you cannot.

Do the proof scientifically and everyone gains, do what you are doing now and you just waste people's time.

Side stepping Sky? LOL. I'm talking about you providing a scientifically valid backup to a claim you made. I'm not making a scientific claim, I'm making a claim for knowledge. I think I've proved more than once to have knowledge in a large number of areas. I'll make you a deal. You go prove you can speak foreign languages without learinng them and you can give me a test.

Ah Sky you do realize that we aren't believers? I'm well aware that in the believers' world asking for proof of claims is considered rather rude. One doesn't do that. In the non-believers world you wouldn't put forth such a claim without already having the evidence.


Sorry to call you out Hanslune, but didn't the OP say we were going to suspend the evidence calling for a bit? Also I am interested in what you have to say about your knowledge and studying about Atlantis, are there any theories that you having regarding its history? e.g. any idea what the civilization might have tried to impart on future civilizations through the mathematical construction of the buildings we have found on the ocean floor?. The OP has definitely contributed his fair share in this manner, high time you did to. Put up or shut up, don't just keep refuting the OP's claims.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by Lokey13



Yes exactly ology should be used for a study or academic discipline . Sky has clearly stated that this is NOT a scientific study. Since you could only prove that an ancient advanced society existed by using science - its kinda of a dead end.

However it can also be used to describe an area of study which could or could not be factual. So in that sense the use of ology is correct but in my mind misleading.

One for Sky

[edit on 18/11/08 by Hanslune]


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:42 PM by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte



If you would be able to post without calling people dimwit and liar, that would be nice.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:52 PM by Hanslune

Sorry to call you out Hanslune, but didn't the OP say we were going to suspend the evidence calling for a bit?


Yes I believe it did but unfortunately I the thread I started to discuss said claims and discuss this thread was shut down. Sky then graciously offered to allow questions. If Sky doesn't want my participation I'm always glad to depart upon his request.


Also I am interested in what you have to say about your knowledge and studying about Atlantis, are there any theories that you having regarding its history?


I've been interested in fringe for forty years, in learning about it I studied most aspects of fringe knowledge to include the grandmother of fringe archaeology, Atlantis.


e.g. any idea what the civilization might have tried to impart on future civilizations through the mathematical construction of the buildings we have found on the ocean floor?


Although I leave the door open for evidence for Atlantis being found, a position I took a long time ago. The probability of what Sky describes, a civilization more advanced than our, being found is very improbable. I've come to that conclusion based on my study of existing civilizations and the massive archaeological footprints they leave. There is no such evidence for Atlantis nor in the environmental data either.


The OP has definitely contributed his fair share in this manner, high time you did to. Put up or shut up, don't just keep refuting the OP's claims.


Sorry I'd rather just refute the OP claims - which have been done thousands of times before.......


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:56 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by Jbird



Let me echo that too. Hey Harte remember the fate of old Marduk. If you are suffering from DFS. Take some time off and refresh that sharp brain of yours.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 06:49 PM by Hanslune
Could an advanced (with our present level of technology or higher) civilization have escaped our notice? Yes

Particularly if it fit into the following parameters

1. Much older that "10,000 BC" the farther you go back the less distinct and precise the geological and other data becomes.

2. A human or other settlement that was very small, not more than 10-20,000 people. A civilization footprint increases by leaps and bounds as the number of people in it increases. If you can keep it very small it is easier to miss it.

3. No traveling or trading, if they are isolated and don't seek contact they then leave fewer artifacts and traces. People who do travel and trade leave lots of traces.

4. Complete destruction. The farther you go back the less accurate is science's detection of events. If you go back far enough sites can be subducted and completely destroyed. Human habitations and artifacts are rather difficult to destroy completely, for example look at Thera, a great deal survived an enormous explosion.

5. The colony used unknown technologies that left no trace - but this doesn't explain the traces that would have been left BEFORE they developed that technology.

6. Unknown source, ie this colony came from some unknown source other than human evolution. This is possibility but at present no evidence supports it.

Summary for hiding from man's search. "Atlantis" would need to be; very small, isolated, suffer complete destruction and be much, much farther back in time than is presently speculated on.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 08:08 PM by Tiste Andii
reply to post by plainmike




Thats very interesting. Whats to say that they did not pack and move onto the moon or within the earth to take a passive role for whatever reason and have been watching us ever since.

Maybe that is what UFO'S are. A past human civilization that has since hidden it'self from us.

TA


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:22 PM by cormac mac airt
reply to post by Hanslune




Just to add to your summary Hanslune, they would have to be no older than approximately 200,000 to 250,000 years as that is as far back as we can currently trace Homo Sapiens. That would be in the middle of the Mindel-Riss interglacial period with two glacial periods separating that time from us.

cormac


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:05 PM by Lokey13
reply to post by Harte



Funny how you only read one of them, the one you were familair with. Also nice to know that your also a liar because if you know Plato you would have aldreay stated that obvious connection. You didn't even post a reply on the other 2 entries. I'm through talking with a toddler.


reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:39 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by cormac mac airt



Howdy Cormac

Yep, one of the older speculations is that an earlier "side shoot" (bad translation from French) evolved faster and a cousin of mankind arose faster than we or the Neanderthals did. Its somewhat plausiable but given the OP of world wide civilization of equal or greater technology as our own - collaspes on the lack of archaeological finds.

Example:

Neanderthals, we have skeletal material from around 400 individuals, ranging in age from 130,000-30,000 years, average age about 50,000.
We have tens of thousands of artifacts.....

Interestingly it would appear these Atlanteans didn't go in for archaeology, excavation leave a very clear mark - no one has ever detected earlier investigations. Nor did they trade with the Neanderthals - so I guess they weren't into trade or even anthropology or even, gasp, providing medical support to lesser beings - unless of course the Atlanteans never met Neanderthals....

So why can we detect early humans fairly easily but not these wide spread humans who lived AFTER them?

Puzzling eh?

Don't get me started on even earlier human finds either, LOL

Edited to reply to Cormac instead of Harte

[edit on 18/11/08 by Hanslune]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 4 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 16 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 109 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 10 hours ago, 93 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 50 replies