Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1

reply to post by Hanslune


I put this statement out there. Make of it what you will.

Facts are circumstances unanimously agreed to by a majority. Facts change when the majority of opinions regarding a set of circumstances change.

definition of fact

A fact consists of the quality of being actual. A fact is also a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

S&F Great article and research

really enjoyed reading that

Good Day! I am a new member and have only recently discovered this outstanding site a few days ago. I must say this is one of the most informative postings I have ever read in any forum. It is refreshing to read such a well researched, written and documented article on any topic, but is especially refreshing when someone writes something of this caliber on a controversial subject and without bias.

I must agree with those persons who have stated this presentation is indicative of either a thesis or dissertation and you should get this published immediately. Very well done.

I am very much looking forward to the next part of this series.

Thank you!

Wayne

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by hoghead cheese

 

SSHHhhhh!

Yeah part 2 covers many of the things you have mentioned. South America will surprise many people. I'll come out of left field with some rather interesting factual tidbits.

Stay tuned.

The Rosicrucian book I linked to on page 2 of this thread makes mention that there are indications of Lemuria in South American ruins....

I'm eagerly awaiting part 2 :-)

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I put this statement out there. Make of it what you will.Facts are circumstances unanimously agreed to by a majority. Facts change when the majority of opinions regarding a set of circumstances change.

definition of fact
A fact consists of the quality of being actual. A fact is also a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

You are partially correct a fact cannot be dismissed by a majority - it remains a fact, or evidence. Science works by concensus not majority.

I see versions of that same statement all the time. It is usually used to cover up the lack of evidence for whatever pet belief, as I have mentioned before efforts to find more evidence will pay higher dividends than endless discussion on forums.

reply to post by Hanslune


I could be mistaken but I think a concensus means a majority in agreement.

Slayer, I love this thread. Atlantis has been a pet myth of mine all my life. That and Camelot. I applaud you for your efforts. I appreciate it.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Hazelnut]

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I could be mistaken but I think a concensus means a majority in agreement.

In the scientific meaning you are mistaken but the difference is subtle.
Collective agreement would be a better description than "majority"

Howdy Slayer

A good compilation and explanation of existing materials!

One question what is your explanation of why these alleged sunken civilization didn't just move to higher ground and why during their existence before the flood/disaster did they not leave traces on said higher ground?

reply to post by Hanslune


Good point Hanslune. I'm still waiting to hear if the same conclusion can be reached when considering a global flood as described in the Bible.

Great thread Slayer and amazing work!

I believe your theories have a lot of credence to them and the kernel of truth idea you put forward about myths and legends is something I also tend to believe.

Considering your extensive study of the out of Africa migrations and ancient civilizations, as well as the "goat herder" survivor hypothesis about shrinking coastlines, have you been able to find cultural similarities that might link these dispursed populations together?

For instance, did Vedic culture have a belief that is similar to Aboriginal dreamtime?

Finding these clues can definitely buttress an already superb hypothesis. Kudos on the hard work!

reply to post by jackflap


Well starting from the point of a biblical global flood is a major non-starter, no such thing happened. What did happen (that we can ID now) were major riverine floods and rising sea levels plus the odd subsidence and rising of land.

Other comments

Legends amongst diverse people will tend to be similar for the simple reason that they are all human and suffer and enjoy the same dreams and desires. How far back myths and legends go is unknown but many of the early technology discovers were accorded to 'gods' as the real people(s) doing it were now forgotten.

[edit on 23/9/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


Understood. Thank you Hanslune! I was intrigued with the global flood thing as various cultures have recorded an event like that. I was just wondering if the conclusion that OP lead me to could be explained in this way. Thanks again.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Slayer

A good compilation and explanation of existing materials!

One question what is your explanation of why these alleged sunken civilization didn't just move to higher ground and why during their existence before the flood/disaster did they not leave traces on said higher ground?

Hey that's a fair question. I didn't want to [flood] the first thread with too much info.

I have a couple of possible reasons covering that coming up.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Not really but that will help in my digging around for answer.
I'm always game for considering things outside the box.

Actually thanks. I think your suggestion may help answer a few loose ends I have.

Howdy Slayer

Making my way slowly thru your first posts, some comments:

Then just where the hell have we been for the preceding 165,000 to 188,000 years?

Hans: All the present evidence shows we were hunter-gathers and type of living used by the majority of the people up to recent times and still used today in a few places. There is no sign of domestication of grains or animals until villages begin to appear, the probably arose together – if there were earlier civilizations – what did they eat? Why no development of agricultural crops and domesticated animals? Could we have missed villages the size of Catalhoyuk? Sure could but it seemed to have had limited cultural effects on the surrounding areas.

Hans: You made mention of herders and such – even they use technology like items to carry water and food – no unassociated pottery arrays are known from the areas you mentions, nor are their unassigned stone tool or metal tool arrays? So why no sign of these things?

I find it rather interesting when we consider that there has been no real evidence of Stone Age tool making in India. Then out of nowhere again we have one of the worlds earliest civilizations show up along the Indus valley.

Hans: Stone tools have been found in numerous areas of India, I’m unsure of what you are basing this on, is this a fringe claim? One of the latest large finds. I will check on that also to see if it has a basis in fact.
www.stonepages.com...

Many megalithic sites create real problems for archaeologists when they attempt to date them. It's funny how many leave that crucial bit of critical information out when they state that a theory that does not fit into the accepted timeline is wrong.

Hans: I don’t quite understand your comments here, yep no way to date certain types of rock. Yes they don’t mention a date if they have no associated data on which to base a date- why do you find that funny? Should they just make up stuff?? LOL. They do have for many sites cultural information which they can associate with some ruins – if a fringe theory doesn’t take in account known dates then yes it can be stated it is wrong. What would you expect them to do accept it??

Once a stone is cut and put into place there is no way to date when that occurred so in order to find out the date of such locations they search for other clues mainly carbon from village camp fires, grave sites etc.

Hans: Unless you date the material found under and around it or in the quarry. Most Carbon dating I believe is of this type

Who’s to say that those locations are not from village campsites or migration through that area that occurred thousands of years after the stone structures were erected?

Hans: Because in most cases you can tell the difference and they will discuss that in the site report. Where possible dating of multiple materials is used, in particular of pottery, brick, bone, obsidian and other objects not just carbon. You might wish to look into stratigraphy and more importantly pedology and stratigraphic context.

I'll get to the rest of your fine material a bit later.

reply to post by jackflap


Hans has some good points.

Without giving anything away. I would suggest a wait and see approach. People all over the world during that period experienced many different things yet came to a similar view for a reason.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hans I want to thank you for your input. It's refreshing to hear somebody else's thoughts and opinions instead of just the voice in my head.

I'm looking forward to your further input.

It is appreciated.

You don't mind if I continue to skirt the fringe just on this side of facts do you?



[edit on 23-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

Hello Slayer! I really enjoyed this thread and I am awaiting the next one. I have always wondered some of the same things you pointed out about Atlantis. Nice work! S&F for sure!

reply to post by SLAYER69


No problem. I'd think that one of the most likely things to survive mass migrations of populations would be cultural/religious beliefs. Obviously, playing a generational game of telephone would alter those beliefs quite a bit, but there should be some core themes that reflect each other in the different cultures.

If the higher-ground inhabitants were the primary survivors of these cultures, and those inhabitants tended to be less-educated goat herders/farmers/etc., then there should be a strong emphasis on the oral traditions of the culture. These survivors would spread the oral tradition to succeeding generations as they migrated to greener pastures.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Fair enough...

But There in lies the crux of the problem.
We are relying on ORAL tradition. Complete with misinterpretations and mistranslations going back not 20 or so students as given in my example but back thousands of years. Actually I'll show some continuity in part 2.