AboveTopSecret.com Video and Media Portal.Books, posters, and more.T-shirts, mouse pads, cups, and bags.Member podcasts.Conspiracy theory wiki.Alternative news headlinesBelowTopSecret.com - off topic and general chit chat.AboveTopSecret.com - conspiracy theories and


 

 

This topic is in the Ancient & Lost Civilizations discussion forum.  (rss)


Introduction to Atlantology


<<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>



reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:02 AM by Hanslune


The failure to make the "leap" to higher technology during the classical Greek period is one of those historical events that still grates. Of course the Chinese were even more advanced but they too didn't quite make the next step.

For the Greeks one can make a point in blaming the Romans. Their conquest of greater Greece ended the development of technology....the reason for that is would take up an entirely new thread.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 02:50 PM by matsplat


www.divejapan.com...

Another part of Mu / Lemuria / Europa? or just another part of another 'ancient lost continent?



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 03:20 PM by IvanZana


The most ignorant view shared by some players in this thread is that they believe Chris columbus was the 1st person to find north america and before that the world continents were unknown to eachother which is just plain stupid.


"Evidence! Evidence! cry the athiests and the ignorant. I need proof from a another man to tell me what exsists and what doesnt, My Encyclopedia Britannica c.1968 says it isnt so, so its must be true!"

Oh well, some people can think for themselves and share a higher order of thought and problem solving skills and other people just like to try to confirm that the ignorance and lack of intelligence they share is shared by many. I am not alone complex.



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


[edit on 21/11/08 by Jbird]



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 03:54 PM by Hanslune











   copyright & usage 
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:06 AM by TruthTellist


This mysterious artifact is about 2000 years old and was found in a tomb in South America. Compare this with modern delta wing aircraft. A scaled to, proof-of-concept model was also built and flown - outside of a conference held to "scientifically debunk" (sound familiar?) the artifacts as nothing more than insect trinkets - insects with vertical & horizontal stabilizers


i17.tinypic.com...

There is a larger selection showing variations but also displaying distinct commonalities (such as stabilizers & control surfaces).

In any case, here are the guys who showed up at the "scientific debunking" with their scale model aircraft, which they flew around in front of everyone who was attending the 'debunking.' The debunker was quite stoic; he didn't even appear to notice the laughter... perhaps he thought they were laughing at someone else.




*Tomorrow I will bring you some more ancient aircraft.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by TruthTellist]


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


[edit on 21/11/08 by Jbird]



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:19 AM by Harte


Originally posted by TruthTellist
This mysterious artifact is about 2000 years old and was found in a tomb in South America. Compare this with modern delta wing aircraft. A scaled to, proof-of-concept model was also built and flown - outside of a conference held to "scientifically debunk" (sound familiar?) the artifacts as nothing more than insect trinkets - insects with vertical & horizontal stabilizers



No, see, believers are quite fond of this particular tale. They enjoy misrepresenting what has been said about that one, single artifact - claiming that archaerologists have decided it was an insect,.

This is not true.

It is a stylized flying fish.

That gold artifact was found with many other artifacts that represent all sorts of animals.

So, are they all "animal-shaped flying crafts?"

Also, please note that in your pics, the model that was flown is not a replica of the artifact. Note the wing shape.

I submit that the model that flew was modified so that it would fly. Why else is it that it is not an exact replica?

This particular claim has been refuted time and again here at ATS, BTW.

The search function will no doubt turn up the refutations.

Harte



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:41 AM by TruthTellist


reply to post by Harte



Thank you for ignoring the OP.

I would like it if you would refrain from your current activities and relegate yourself to those specified by Skyfloating in his OP.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 09:13 AM by Jbird


Please !

Opinions on the Topic are fair game.

Opinions on members, members styles, members behavior are NOT.


Come on guys, sheesh.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 10:50 AM by Harte


Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Harte



Thank you for ignoring the OP.

I would like it if you would refrain from your current activities and relegate yourself to those specified by Skyfloating in his OP.


I would like it if you would stop posting fiction as fact.

What's the matter, not enough facts out there? Have to make some up?

Harte



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 11:02 AM by Byrd


The thread is getting testy and contentious.

The original topic was "atlantology." Possible areas to explore are "who teaches this", "what books do they recommend", "what approaches do they use" and so forth.

Questions about whether it's actually a real and scholarly subject and about who found it a scholarly subject in the past are also encouraged.

Bringing up not-Atlantis stuff doesn't count because we're talking about Atlantology. Yes, I know Atlantologists bring this up all the time when they run into a tough series of questions. We're not allowing this.




Thread closed for 24 hours so everyone can stop, think, and then get back on topic and NOT bring up the presumed "out of place artifacts"/"alien artifacts"/"other places" (which have been mentioned time and time again.)



   copyright & usage 
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 04:17 PM by Skyfloating


[edit on 23-11-2008 by Skyfloating]



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 10:25 PM by watchZEITGEISTnow


hey come back skyfloating we want more

I believe there was an Atlantis and Lemuria as described by Tsarion and other historians.

I don't have proof I exist. I'm just type on the screen.

Can I suggest we make a thread that stipulates anyone that does not believe in Atlantis, well they just don't post? And the mods (god love them) can just ban those from posting?

And those that don't believe in Atlantis can start up their own thread, and they can all go there and say whatever they want.

But yeah, Atlantis is to me what Genisis (genes of ISIS) and the Old Testament is in the bible. It fits and makes more sense than any other 'theory' I have heard to describe.

Rock on fellow Atlantians, you never know, we may have lived past lives there before... if you believe in reincarnation that is.



wZn



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 10:46 PM by TruthTellist


So to clarify-

Do you only want us to post pictures that have never been seen?

Are you saying that the pictures I have posted thus far are somehow bad?

Do you have an example of the kind of picture I should post?

*I am confused as to the nature of your demands. Could you please clarify as to what I am allowed to say and what pictures I am allowed to post.

Sorry to be a bug, but you have confused me and my aged brain.

Do you have a picture of Atlantis that I may keep on file, so that I may compare all pictures to it before deigning to show them to my fellow members?



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 06:08 AM by FatherLukeDuke


Originally posted by Harte
It's also depressing. Considering that the Greeks could make such fine gears, it is a great tragedy (pun intended) that they didn't use these gears to make more fine gears.

An industrial revolution might have ensued.

Where would we be today if they had made this simple leap?

Harte

Terry Jones, in his great little book, Barbarians, puts the blame squarely on the Romans. The odd Pliny aside the Romans were incurious of anything that wasn't capable of killing people or supported killing people. They tended to supress or marginalise anything else.

The ignorant Roman soldier striking down Archimedes while he worked seemed to epitomise Roman Civilisation and it's effects on the world for Jones (and me).



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 06:32 AM by mortalengine


Originally posted by Nohup
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Atlantis is merely an umbrella term for an Empire that was spread across the entire earth.


Personally, I don't think it's such a good idea to use "Atlantis" as a generic term for a hypothetical prehistoric, world-encompassing civilization. I tend to think that Atlantis, as specifically described by Plato, would have had limited cultural influence in primarily the Western Europe/Northern Africa, Mediterranean, and Caribbean areas, possibly with the inclusion of northern South America. Influence in North America was probably minimal, due to the difficulties with remaining post-Ice Age ice, and a wide, marshy, difficult-to-navigate shoreline along the North American east coast.

I sincerely doubt that they had any real contact or influence with southern South America, the Indian Subcontinent, or any part of eastern Asia, including Australia or the southern Pacific Islands. Other significant, as-yet-undiscovered civilizations might have had influence in these areas, but not specifically Atlantis.

There may have been some insignificant contact between these other hypothetical civilizations and the Atlantic civilization, but for the most part, I suspect that a lot of the supposed similarities in culture and seminal mythologies are probably a result of good old Jungian archetypes popping up in different places at the same time.

Anyway, I prefer to keep Atlantis in the Atlantic. They may have had a somewhat developed civilization, with a relatively good handle on agriculture, law, and seafaring, but I doubt that they were such incredible (literally) globetrotters.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Nohup]


Didn't Plato use the word Atlantis in the same way we use the word Eutopia today ? This is what I thought when I read a bit of his descriptions of the place. Having said that, I do strongly believe that it was based on an actual civilisation but that it was gone for so long that it becomes a concept instead of a real civilization. Kind of like the supposed "fall of man" in the Garden of Eden scenario. It's all a reflection back on a state we once had but lost due to whatever reason.

I realise today's necessity for "solid" evidence and facts etc but at the same time I truly believe we need to give more credence to what we call "myths" today. We cant just assume that our ancestors were a bunch of morons who dreamt up fanciful "Gods" and then believed their own lies - these people built some pretty advanced buildings and had amazing knowledge of the skies - we should probably give them a little more credit than what we currently do these days.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 07:04 AM by Harte


Originally posted by mortalengine
I realise today's necessity for "solid" evidence and facts etc but at the same time I truly believe we need to give more credence to what we call "myths" today.

Mortalenghine,

The probnlem with that is there exists no "Atlantis" myth, not in any culture.

The first mention of any Atlantean culture we have ever found comes from Plato. There is no Greek tradition, oral or written, that says anything about any prior civilization that even remotely resembles what Plato wrote.

I wish there were.

Regarding "hard" evidence, simply finding such a myth in some ancient culture would constiutute some evidence for the existence of Plato's Atlantis.

Sadly, as I said, there is none.

Originally posted by mortalengine
We cant just assume that our ancestors were a bunch of morons who dreamt up fanciful "Gods" and then believed their own lies - these people built some pretty advanced buildings and had amazing knowledge of the skies - we should probably give them a little more credit than what we currently do these days.

I believe it is safe to say that the ancient gods were indeed "made up."

Building awesome structures does not equate with any understanding of the vagaries of life. The existence of "Gods" can help explain, for example, why it gets cold in the winter, why it hasn't rained lately, why the earth shook the other day, etc.

Harte



   copyright & usage 
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 07:25 AM by Skyfloating


Hello.

Having abandoned this thread a few pages back, I was hoping it would trickle out and just stop. Apparently not.

Directed at Harte & Hanslune

I am very reluctant to discuss things I've already discussed with you in many other threads - without conclusion.

You show up at this website dedicated to non-mainstream ideas with a set of of mainstream concepts. I suppose you are not interested discussing with like-minded people on the 100000000000000+ websites dedicated to mainstream concepts?

As a member (not as a Moderator!), I would like to quote a few ATS policies:


(ATS is...)

It is a statement against the paradigm.

It is a rage against the mindless status-quo.

1




(1) We ATS members need to embrace and welcome those with highly speculative theories that may be based on little more than guesses. These are the ideas that help maintain the upper limits of what may be.

(2) We ATS members need to support the investigation of fantastic ideas based on evidentiary observations across the entire spectrum of our topics. These are the discussions that zero-in on what is likely to be.

2

Finally, I would like to offer this for your consideration:

No more ridicule

So while skepticism and disagreement are welcome, I (as a member of ATS) would like to remind you that far-out-speculation beyond mainstream facts is not only valid here but even necessary.

As I mentioned elsewhere: When someone commits a murder it is more likely that evidence of this is completely hidden rather than out in the open. A police officer, for example, mustnt wait until he finds evidence before he follows up on his search. The very basis of conspiracy-theory and mystery-research presupposes that evidence is scant.

Using the "no proof" slogan too frequently, as you two do from thread to thread to thread runs counter to this.

__________________________________________

What does this have to do with Atlantis?

Atlantology wouldnt exist if it did not presuppose that evidence has been wiped-out...almost completely. How? Maybe by a worldwide disaster of gigantic proportions. Maybe by a cover-up for unknown reasons.

So, if the evidence is wiped-out or no longer remembered, why do we still suspect Atlantis may have existed?

Well, if someone commits murder and removes the evidence, the police-officer has to go by rumor, hearsay and tiny fragments of indicators. In Atlantology we have to go by what the ancients said.

In this analogy, the police officer will not say "Well, there's no evidence of a murder having occured, so I'll just leave this alone." The murderer who threw the body into the river grins: "There is indeed no more evidence".

The tiny fragments (indicators) were listed in the second post of this thread.

The goal of the Atlantologist is:

To find evidence for the existence of advanced civilizations long before ours

Most of us disagree with the mainstream notions that:

* "We are the fist and only advanced civilization, all that came before us were the less advanced and the savages"

Instead: Advanced Civilizations come and go, in cycles (rather than one evolutionary line from bottom to top). "Advanced" does not necessarily always mean owning the same technology that we own. It can also refer to spiritual abilities.

* "Mythological and Religious accounts were purely fictitious and are unimportant"

Instead: Mythology and Religion are based on real events (many of which were mis-interpreted or incompletely remembered)

* "Our origins are a coincidence as a result of random chemical-reactions".

Instead: Our origins are no coincidence but part of a bigger Cosmology and Design.

* "We are alone in the Universe"

Instead: Exchange with other lifeforms, planets and dimensions has been going on since Millions of years.

* "There are no out-of-place artifacts. Everything has already been explained"

Instead: There are many thousands of OOPA that dont fit into the extremely narrow band of mainstream thought.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 09:28 AM by Harte


Originally posted by Skyfloating

Directed at Harte & Hanslune

I am very reluctant to discuss things I've already discussed with you in many other threads - without conclusion.

I never doubted that you were hesitant. I would be too, if I took some of your positions.

But you've already shown you can't seriously make these arguments when you threw up your hands and walked off after I pointed out a falsehood deliberately posted as a fact earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by SkyfloatingYou show up at this website dedicated to non-mainstream ideas with a set of of mainstream concepts. I suppose you are not interested discussing with like-minded people on the 100000000000000+ websites dedicated to mainstream concepts?

Why would you assume I don't discuss these things with like-minded people as well as ATS posters?

Also:
ATS's motto, then, counts for nothing?

How do you suspend a motto like "Deny Ignorance?"

I trust it will be "okay with you" if I point out falsehoods that have been professed as factual in this thread?

After all, that is all I have done here.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As a member (not as a Moderator!), I would like to quote a few ATS policies:

(1) We ATS members need to embrace and welcome those with highly speculative theories that may be based on little more than guesses. These are the ideas that help maintain the upper limits of what may be.

(2) We ATS members need to support the investigation of fantastic ideas based on evidentiary observations across the entire spectrum of our topics. These are the discussions that zero-in on what is likely to be.

2



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deliberately posting false information and claiming it is true also mentioned somewhere in the terms?

Harte


   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 04:11 PM by TheWayISeeIt


reply to post by Harte




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deliberately posting false information and claiming it is true also mentioned somewhere in the terms?

Harte



I see the Tedious Twins have been reunited (waves at Hans in the b.g.)

Hello Harte -

Seeing as I'm here and all, please allow me to correct you for being wrong. Sky is not deliberately posting false information and you know it. He is posting speculative information which, as he so helpfully pointed out and linked to, is the point of this site.

ON TOPIC - Can someone please link to or post the various cultures that have the Atla, Atlan myth commonality? I know I have read it around here before and think it would be a good subject to also have under consideration here, on this thread which is clearly stated in the OP as a place for Atlantology (ists) and speculation.

I also believe the OP states this thread is not about discussing the tiresome did-or-did-not exist, and how you two get away with being in flagrant violation of the OP over-and-over again is a mystery to me... esp. when you are both wont to accuse SF of having special-latitude as a moderator.

Cheers!
TWISI



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 05:28 PM by Skyfloating


reply to post by TheWayISeeIt



Thanks for responding for me. There's someone who can tell speculation apart from lying....but I didnt expect him to be able too.

The language connection: If you find a good list, post it. If not I'll post on it later.

Here's something that hasnt been posted on ATS yet:


A Hebrew treatise on computational astronomy dated to AD 1378/79, apparently a paraphrase of an unknown earlier Islamic work, alludes to the Atlantis myth in a discussion concerning the determination of zero points for the calculation of longitude:

Some say that they [the inhabited regions] begin at the beginning of the western ocean [the Atlantic] and beyond. For in the earliest times [literally: the first days] there was an island in the middle of the ocean. There were scholars there, who isolated themselves in [the pursuit of] philosophy. In their day, that was the [beginning for measuring] the longitude[s] of the inhabited world. Today, it has become [covered by the?] sea, and it is ten degrees into the sea; and they reckon the beginning of longitude from the beginning of the western sea.[23]


Source: ^ Selin, Helaine 2000, Astronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy



   copyright & usage 


<<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>





























































ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.254 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.