Introduction to Atlantology, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 44 times

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:40 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by Lokey13

I'll nibble then.

So what is the evidence that the Egyptians knew about Atlantis?

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 11:31 PM by Hanslune

More on the domestication issue

Animal domestication

Plant domestication

What do these charts show?

Domestication occuring well after the 10,000 BC point except for dogs (Hey maybe Atlanteans ate dogs? They are tasty) and that different species were domesticated in the Americas and in Europe/Asia/Africa. Compelling evidence that there wasn't a shared central point for the spread of domestication. For nearly all these domesticated plants a local wild variant shows us were the domestication probably occurred.

Which leaves us with. Atlanteans using some unknown plant or living off sea borne food sources. We are of course lacking any Atlantean shell middens.

[edit on 18/11/08 by Hanslune]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 01:35 AM by merka

Originally posted by Hanslune
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.

Yes... But then it would also be completely detatched from Platos Atlantis. In fact, it would have absolutely nothing to do with it. Which makes this "Atlantis" a complete fabrication, a theory based on nothing other than imagination.

Which IMO isnt a very good way to promote a possible Atlantis to begin with...

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 07:07 AM by Harte

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

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

It would also be "helpful" if posters wouldn't lie about so-called "evidence" re Atlantis.

After all, is this "Atlantology" or "falsehoodology?"

"Atlantology" is, to me, a valid term in that there is a large body of work out there on the subject and thus the study of these varuious speculations might be considered to fit within a definition of "Atlantology."

However, as I stated in my first post in this thread, when a poster posits a thing that is untrue, contributors to this thread should expect that posters here that know better may well chime in with the actual facts of the particular matter in question, in this case, the Egyptian "scripts" that discuss an Atlantean society.

I feel I abided in full with the admonition not to ask for any scientific evidence for Atlantis. I merely stated that a poster had posted an untruth.

Originally posted by Lokey13
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.

I didn't ask you to produce any "connection," and a "connection" is not what you said was a "fact."

Originally posted by Lokey13
You didn't even post a reply on the other 2 entries. I'm through talking with a toddler.

I know that Edgar Cayce knew absolutely nothing about any records left from Egypt.

Your other site was blocked by the server I'm on, but I recognized the url.

So, you're finished talking, eh? Not surprising, since you've been shown to have a penchant for making things up to fit your world view. Thus:

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.

There are, as I tried to say, no such Egyptian scripts. Hence you, of course, have no answer to my request that you produce them.

Since you have no answer for the untruth you posted for your own convenience, it's time for you to take your ball and go home:

I'm through talking with a toddler.

That is, of course, the only answer you can give to my request for these "Egyptian scripts" that you claim are known to exist.

Harte

[edit on 11/19/2008 by Harte]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 07:27 AM by TruthTellist

reply to post by Harte

This is not a thread for the debate “Atlantologists vs. Conventional Knowledge”. We have enough of those threads here. It is also not a thread about “Did Atlantis exist or not?”. It is a thread for those who have decided to pursue the belief that Atlantis did in fact exist – a thread for Atlantologists and those interested in Atlantology to compare their data and dig deeper...much deeper than the Base-1 question “Did Atlantis exist?”.

-Skyfloating's OP (please read it before you post again)

Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/11/08 by Jbird]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 09:35 AM by Skyfloating

The stated purpose of this thread

was for Atlantologists to discuss deeper and less-known aspects of Atlantology, not to discuss, for the thousandth time, "Is Atlantis real or not?" or to explain for the thousandth time the theory that a cataclysm of great impact wiped out most (but not all) of the evidence.

I am not willing to engage, for the thousandth time, in a Base 1 "Did Atlantis exist?" discussion with Hanslune & Harte, who tend to suppress any sort of need for speculation and extrapolation with their repetitive and scoffing agenda.

As the intended topic of this thread (Base 2,3 and 4 knowledge) has been derailed, I will no longer participate in it.

Thanks for everyones contributions to this thread and Goodbye

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 09:46 AM by Hanslune

reply to post by Skyfloating

Well I guess that is one way to avoid answering those tuft questions.

But wait

You said Sky

This is to say that I do not mind think your tough responses are a "derailment" of this thread. Go ahead and comment.

I also added

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

So Sky if you want to speculateive fantasyjust ask us to leave - your sending mixed message here. I would be glad to depart at your request.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 10:00 AM by TruthTellist

reply to post by Hanslune

Please leave.

I don't want you to post any more. Please stop.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 10:45 AM by Hanslune

reply to post by TruthTellist

Howdy Truthtellist

Thanks for your opinion

Sorry dude you ain't the guy who can make that request - but you did give me a evil and funny idea....[grin]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 10:55 AM by Harte

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The stated purpose of this thread
was for Atlantologists to discuss deeper and less-known aspects of Atlantology, not to discuss, for the thousandth time, "Is Atlantis real or not?" or to explain for the thousandth time the theory that a cataclysm of great impact wiped out most (but not all) of the evidence.

I am not willing to engage, for the thousandth time, in a Base 1 "Did Atlantis exist?" discussion with Hanslune & Harte, who tend to suppress any sort of need for speculation and extrapolation with their repetitive and scoffing agenda.

I haven't made any such argument.

I simply called a poster on a less-than-true statement he made regarding the subject.

If it is to be allowed that anyone post anything they "feel" is true and then state that their claim is "a Fact!," then what is the point?

How about if someone came on saying they know Atlantis is real because they are Plato, they never died, but were taken by vampires into the realm of the undead?

Are we to treat such a claim as worthy of being put under the heading of "Atlantology?"

I have not argued for or against the existence of Atlantis in this thread, regardless of how many straw-man reasons Skyfloating might have for abondoning his own thread.

I have not tried to suppress any speculation or any extrapolation in this thread, regardless of Skyfloating's need to claim that I have.

What I have done is attempt to point out a literal untruth that was posted as a fact - actually called a "fact" by the poster - regarding Egyptian records.

If that's all it takes to scare off Skyfloating, the question arises in my mind why it is that Skyfloating has in the past not been afraid to make the case for Atlantis.

Could it be because in this case, Skyfloating would actually have to stand up and admit I was right, and that Lokey13 should, perhaps, review some of the research done on this subject before making claims that are indubitably of a factual nature?

If so, then what exactly is wrong with that?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As the intended topic of this thread (Base 2,3 and 4 knowledge) has been derailed, I will no longer participate in it.

Thanks for everyones contributions to this thread and Goodbye

Skyfloating, thus, derails the topic of his own thread and uses that excuse to avoid explaining exactly what falls under the heading of "Atlantology" and what does not.

Harte

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 10:56 AM by yeahright

For the record, the off-topic stops NOW. Any confusion on that, please refer back to the opening post for the topic.

And for further clarification, I know there are some very passionate opinions on this topic. However, there needs to be the ability to draw a distinction between thinking someone is incorrect and insulting them.

Calling someone a name shuts down the discourse, or at least channels it in a different and personal direction. Asking someone to support their claims, or questioning the evidence, furthers the discussion and makes it more interesting.

I ask we please remain on topic and discuss the material and not the perceived lack of integrity of our fellow members.

I'm not directing this at any member(s) specifically, but if you think it applies to you, the likelihood is, you're correct.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 11:15 AM by Lokey13

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 11:45 AM by TruthTellist

So much of our past now lies beneath the Waves; Things of wonder...

7m Tall Head

Digital Model of the Site at Yonaguni, where the above pictures were taken:

All The Images I couldn't Add - Le Grande Montage

[edit on 19-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/11/08 by Jbird]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 11:49 AM by The 5th

S + F

Amazing thread Skyfloating, the best part for me is the reading list, looks like ive missed a few.

This thread is perfect for me on so many different levels lol, and as im mid way through Donnely's master piece, it couldnt of come at a better time. This lurker may even post, which is a rare event.

Hopefully this will help people learn some truth aswell, ive read a few skyfloating threads now, and he comes acros as a very well grounded yet wise man, i hope everyone pushes their comfort zones and really researches this.

Peace

[edit on 19-11-2008 by The 5th]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 12:03 PM by TruthTellist

Who Remembers this ancient marvel?

Supposedly this device was made by a society who had yet to develop the concept of 'zero'.... yeah right.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/11/08 by Jbird]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 01:15 PM by merka

Originally posted by TruthTellist
Supposedly this device was made by a society who had yet to develop the concept of 'zero'.... yeah right.

But if you look at the device, where do you see the need for the zero? Where is the need for algebra?

You're right in that Greeks didnt have a concept for it: they didnt like algebra at all.

HOWEVER they where very skilled at geometry, solving what we today would use algebra for with shapes and figures. Pythagoras anyone? Euclid?

Plato himself was a bloody teacher that tought math and geometry!!!

[edit on 19-11-2008 by merka]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 01:42 PM by TruthTellist

reply to post by merka

"But if you look at the device, where do you see the need for the zero?"

Gee whiz, I'm sorry I mentioned it.

Goodbye.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 04:37 PM by merka

Oh you can mention what you want. But if you think the "society" that made the Antikythera mechanism was primitive, you really need to look up a history book on what the Greeks where really capable of.

Its kind of odd, since the whole argument is about overestimating the ancients: they could do more than we think. Yet at the same time they're underestimated, they cant possibly have done what we think. I've never quite understood that contradiction.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 08:29 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by merka

Howdy Merka

It is probable that the Antikythera mechanism was not unique. Similar devices are mentioned in De re publica, a 1st century BC philosophical dialogue by Cicero. Plus the Pappus of Alexandria stated that Archimedes had written a now lost manuscript on the construction of these devices entitled 'On Sphere-Making'.

In the early 9th century, the Banū Mūsā's Kitab al-Hiyal described a hundred plus mechanical items that sound like the Antikythera, some of which may date back to ancient Greek texts in monasteries of the time.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 07:00 AM by Harte

Originally posted by TruthTellist
Who Remembers this ancient marvel?
Supposedly this device was made by a society who had yet to develop the concept of 'zero'.... yeah right.