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.

 

Antediluvian Civilizations and more

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 




It changes some assumptions in paleontology about how these animals evolved, and will probably be hammered at by a number of paleontologists. We'll also have a bunch showing up wanting to see the bones for themselves, which we will gladly make available along with documentation. Jack Horner's recent Stygimoloch-Dracorex connection is similar and he also went through a round of peer reviews and people looking at their materials as well as his. The field of nanotechnology has changed everything, as has the discovery of semiconductors, the idea that dinosaur extinction was caused by a meteor hitting the Earth, and so on and so forth.
Not even dictators can stop this process.


Sounds awesome! I hope you're right about that last statement.




Actually, you CAN form some basis on which to judge these. For instance, in the "dinosaur track" idea, have a look at pictures of dinosaur tracks. Walk barefoot on mud or on the beach and look closely at how your own footprint looks (if you can at the beach, look how it changes when it is "eroded" by waves.) See which parts are deepest and how the sand squishes up around certain areas when you walk or run. Knowing what a real footprint looks like and how tracks change as you walk or run helps you spot fakes in an instant. And so on and so forth. If a site says "Lucy (the fossil) is a deformed chimpanzee", go look at the bones of the fossil and then at a site that shows chimp skeletons. Look at the shape of the hip bones and leg bones and arm bones. Simple research like that (looking for original evidence) helps you learn.


Great suggestions. And I have always tried to do these types of things when I can, and as much as I understand how to, depending on the given field, and how much I understand the theory behind what is being put forth. And I have found it helpful in the learning process. So no argument on this part.




Or you can go on faith... but doesn't that mean you have to avoid investigating anything that seems contrary to your faith? That there is only one immutable answer (such as "there are no more elements beyond the 118 we currently know that can be made or discovered") and that nothing (like building new elements with an atomic weight higher than 118) can change it?


And herein is the crux of my argument to start with. My use of the word faith in regards to myself is somewhat fecetious. I wasted too many years in the christian church living on faith, and trying to reconcile my scientific studies to that belief system. Long story short. I walked away from the church, and haven't looked back. Point being, it's no longer easy to gain my trust, or my faith in anything. All too often, I see science quoted by some folks as if they were quoting religious texts. All too often, I see that same religious fervor from those who have placed an unquestioning faith in the scientific community, as I used to witness in the church. I think our modern sciences are incredible and fascinating. But I refuse to have another religion in my life. And if I think the consensus of scientists is wrong, I'm going to say so.

Thanks for the great feedback to my posts Byrd(and others). It's nice to get thoughtful, constructive feedback, instead of having a less than useful shouting match in which no one learns, or broadens their horizons on anything.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



The discoveries of what seem to be ruins of old cities submerged have been made public and Slayers69 thread about human history is IMO spot on.



Made public, yes. But none of it has changed the official line. Nor will it in the near future, IMO.


Might I point out that in the last decade, the entire paradigm regarding the peopling of the Americas has been changed...not to mention the canard about Columbus discovering discovering America. They have changes the official line for anybody paying attention, and I'd say they are of passing importance, n'est ce que pas?

edit on 9-2-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)


Agreed. These are of more than passing importance. However, I believe there are much bigger changes that need to be forthcoming, but that's for another thread.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 

Schuyler. You covered a lot in a short space there. Eloquently stated. I often wish my fingers were as well aquainted with my thoughts, as your fingers are with yours.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Thats my point... Throughout history we thought we had all of the facts to explain the way things are.

In the end it turned out we were wrong...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hi Byrd.
Your "hps.org" link don't work.


Weird. It did for me. Talks about irradiated fossil beds.


I find nothing about the presumed uranium mine near Mohenjo Daro. Nothing. Any link?


Oh. Sorry. Yes, there's lots on the topic. The area is Rajasthan and as you can see from the following links (only three out of a great many) there's active mining and exploration for radioactive ores there:
www.angelfire.com...
www.wise-uranium.org...
www.minesandcommunities.org...



Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. “It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”


Except -- there's no archaeologist named Francis Taylor associated with any India digs. The man you linked to isn't an archaeologist, so it's no wonder that you thought his references were a bit thin! In any case, he's not the proposed archaeologist of that story.

We here at ATS have looked into this a number of times. There is not (and apparently never was) a magazine named "World Island Review." Harte tracked down the Vedic Historian who supports this -- and found that this historian died before Mohenjo-Daro was discovered. The tale appears to have started on Rense, and no fact checking was done.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hi Byrd.
Your "hps.org" link don't work.


Weird. It did for me. Talks about irradiated fossil beds.



Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hi Byrd.
Your "hps.org" link don't work.

I did for me as well. Here's a quote:


It is not unusual for fossils to contain elevated levels of uranium and its associated decay products. This is particularly true for those parts of the country rich in uranium deposits (for example, the Morrison formation). Uranium from the ore will dissolve in the local groundwater and when the latter comes into contact with porous organic material, such as a buried tree trunk or dinosaur bone, the uranium precipitates (the precise chemistry is not something I have information about). Over time, the replacement of the organic material by uranium can become substantial. During the uranium fever of the 1950s, a prospector could make a considerable amount of money from the uranium content in a single petrified tree, and radiation detectors have proven very effective by paleontologists hunting dinosaur remains. The radiation exposure rates associated with these fossils can be high enough (several milliroentgen per hour) that some museums segregate their more radioactive material. However, the small specimens you are probably handling are unlikely to contain sufficient uranium for them to be any cause for concern. While no one has been harmed by handling such fossils, at least to my knowledge, it would still be good practice to wash after handling the material. Just practice good housekeeping. If you are still concerned, you could purchase an inexpensive Geiger Mueller detector. At least then you would have an idea as to the relative activity of your various specimens. To put this in perspective, the real risks associated with your hobby are more likely to be car accidents, trips, falls, snake bites, etc., than any exposure to radiation. And when your remains are laid to rest in a marble orchard, your bones will begin accumulating uranium.

Paul Frame, CHP, PhD



Originally posted by Byrd

I find nothing about the presumed uranium mine near Mohenjo Daro. Nothing. Any link?


Oh. Sorry. Yes, there's lots on the topic. The area is Rajasthan and as you can see from the following links (only three out of a great many) there's active mining and exploration for radioactive ores there:
www.angelfire.com...
www.wise-uranium.org...
www.minesandcommunities.org...



Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. “It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”


Except -- there's no archaeologist named Francis Taylor associated with any India digs. The man you linked to isn't an archaeologist, so it's no wonder that you thought his references were a bit thin! In any case, he's not the proposed archaeologist of that story.

We here at ATS have looked into this a number of times. There is not (and apparently never was) a magazine named "World Island Review." Harte tracked down the Vedic Historian who supports this -- and found that this historian died before Mohenjo-Daro was discovered. The tale appears to have started on Rense, and no fact checking was done.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm glad you did that Byrd. I wasn't looking forward to all that digging around with the search function.

Somewhere here at ATS I've posted links along with that information. In particular, a link to info about the contamination I mentioned.

I'm not inclined to do all that again. If people really wanted to know about this, they already would know. After all, I found it all out, didn't I?

Here's a link to the Rense page about it: www.rense.com...

That is the oldest reference I've been able to find on this story. There's plenty of material in there for people to use on Google, as Arken obviously did (and let me commend you for that, Arken. Did you find the "other" Francis Taylor? The art museum curator? I did.) If anyone wants to know about it and they don't want to believe me (which seems to be all the rage these days here at ATS,) then google up the info yourself.

I will tell everyone this - you won't find any more info on this than was presented in the original Rense story. Every site you find this stuff on, the content is just a copy-and-paste of the Rense material.

Harte



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Byrd


Kind of makes one wonder if the Atlantian civilization might be misunderstood as to its location. History says it was an Island beyond the pillars of hercules.


Actually, history doesn't say that. Plato said that. History has no evidence of an Atlantis.


Herodotus says that in History, Book 4 does he not?

184. ….. After this at a distance of ten days' journey there is another hill of salt and spring of water, and men dwell round it. Near this salt hill is a mountain named Atlas, which is small in circuit and rounded on every side; and so exceedingly lofty is it said to be, that it is not possible to see its summits, for clouds never leave them either in the summer or in the winter. This the natives say is the pillar of the heaven. After this mountain these men got their name, for they are called Atlantians; and it is said that they neither eat anything that has life nor have any dreams.
185. As far as these Atlantians I am able to mention in order the names of those who are settled in the belt of sand; but for the parts beyond these I can do so no more. However, the belt extends as far as the Pillars of Heracles and also in the parts outside them…



Herodotus is talking there about a mountain in what we today call the Atlas Mountain range in Northern Africa.

He clearly states this.

He calls these people "Atlantes" actually. I don't know how your translation gets the term "Atlanteans" from this.

Also, if your gonna consider Herodotus as a reliable historian (or a historian of any kind,) you're gonna have to buy into a whole lot of really strange crap. Like the strange crap you quoted above about not eating anything that has life, and not having dreams.

If you read just a few books of Herodotus' "Histories," you'll find a lot weirder stuff than that. People who always walk backwards, people who sing like birds. Cattle with only two legs, etc.

Not history, in other words.

harte



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


atlantes means the people of atlas. atlanteans are the people of the nesos of atlas. both places have a centre hill, both are near the pillars of hercules and both have a sandbar. do you think they are two different places? do you think plato is talking about different people of atlas who live near a different pillars of hercules around a different hill with a different sandbar?

mount atlas was in hyperborea. atlas was a hyperborean king and that is not in africa. hyperborea was across okeanos potamos to the north of thrace. herodotus says he knows nothing about that region.

but the whole point was that plato did not invent atlantis. everyone from the persians to the egyptians and mesopotamians were jabbering away about it all the time and long before plato or herodotus. the fact that herodotus mentions atlantis in his "history" long before plato was purely coincidental to what she said.

does this add up for you?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Harte
 


atlantes means the people of atlas. atlanteans are the people of the nesos of atlas. both places have a centre hill, both are near the pillars of hercules and both have a sandbar. do you think they are two different places? do you think plato is talking about different people of atlas who live near a different pillars of hercules around a different hill with a different sandbar?

You haven't actually read the Histories of Herodotus, have you?

If you had, you would know that the Mount Atlas he's talking about is on the mainland of Africa, exactly where the Atlas mountain range is.

Plato was the first person in history to mention Atlantis, or even anything like Atlantis. According to Plato, and Plato is the only source there is, Atlantis was named after Atlas, the human son of Poseidon.

In this mountain there dwelt one of the earth born primeval men of that country, whose name was Evenor, and he had a wife named Leucippe, and they had an only daughter who was called Cleito. The maiden had already reached womanhood, when her father and mother died; Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her,

SNIP

He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic.

Source: classics.mit.edu...

Mount Atlas, in the Histories, was named after the Titan Atlas, as that was where it was thought he stood to hold up the sky.


In Greek mythology, Atlas (English pronunciation: /ˈætləs/, Greek. Ἄτλας) was the primordial Titan who supported the heavens. Although associated with various places, he became commonly identified with the Atlas Mountains in north-west Africa.[1] Atlas was the son of the Titan Iapetus and the Oceanid Asia[2] or Klyménē (Κλυμένη):[3]

Source; en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)

Also:


181. Thus then have been mentioned those nomad Libyans who live along the sea-coast: and above these inland is the region of Libya which has wild beasts; and above the wild-beast region there stretches a raised belt of sand, extending from Thebes of the Egyptians to the Pillars of Heracles. In this belt at intervals of about ten days' journey there are fragments of salt in great lumps forming hills, and at the top of each hill there shoots up from the middle of the salt a spring of water cold and sweet; and about the spring dwell men, at the furthest limit towards the desert, and above the wild-beast region. First, at a distance of ten days' journey from Thebes, are the Ammonians,

SNIP

After this at a distance of ten days' journey there is another hill of salt and spring of water, and men dwell round it. Near this salt hill is a mountain named Atlas, which is small in circuit and rounded on every side; and so exceedingly lofty is it said to be, that it is not possible to see its summits, for clouds never leave them either in the summer or in the winter. This the natives say is the pillar of the heaven. After this mountain these men got their name, for they are called Atlantians; and it is said that they neither eat anything that has life nor have any dreams.


Source: Herodotus "Histories" Book 4, Paragraphs 180 through 184

Herodotus plainly states above that he moves inland from the coast to describe these people, along with nine other peoples that live along the "raised belt of sand" which he says is inland from the coast of Libya.

There's really no need to discuss this any further with you if you're going to pretend you know something that you quite obviously do not.


Harte



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


wow throwing wiki at me. you is a scholar.

dear high school math teacher and self proclaimed failed atlantologist who hasn't read 1/1000 of the books i've read: it seems highly likely to you that the people of atlas near the pillars of hercules surrounding a hill with a sandbar are not the same in plato and herodotus? and you're just not going to talk about it anymore? and noone but plato talks about atlantis?

the core of the atlantis myth is a large city on a freshwater sea and the cow pen at gadiera [thats why gadiera is mentioned at all]. those 3 elements are in the story of yima, the enki and his bolts and the abzu, ra and hs hidden circles and ptahs enclosure. that is a fact. sorry mathman.

as a high school math teacher you don't actually know whats going on in the world of archaeology do you. pop over to the university of tennessee and ask them about iarcuri.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As far as the out of place artifacts comment the other poster made, I agree that some are easily explainable. Some however dont make sense though, and the one that stands out to me are the "pipes" found in the mountains in China.


It makes no sense if you're not familiar with geology. There's stranger stuff in geology than most people know about.


The human footprints located next to dinosaur tracks is another one. Either we are totally screwing up the math to determine age, or at some point in history man and dino coinsided.


There's two other options (which are correct):
1) Some of those are misidentified tracks of other dinosaurs. Not all of them have flat round feet and some of them have a fairly narrow foot. After weathering, they "sort of" look like human footprints. What you're not being shown is the WHOLE track... just the bits that "sort of" look like human footprints.

2) Others are outright fakes. I've seen several where the artist has NO idea how the bottom of a human foot is shaped and has never looked at bones in a dinosaur foot.

.


We have di9nosaur and human tracks together in Australia. There are real human foot prints next to Dinosaurs.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Harte
 



but the whole point was that plato did not invent atlantis. everyone from the persians to the egyptians and mesopotamians were jabbering away about it all the time and long before plato or herodotus. the fact that herodotus mentions atlantis in his "history" long before plato was purely coincidental to what she said.

does this add up for you?


Hi, can you provide one link that holds information that can be proven to pre-date Plato? One would be enough thanks. Please don't provide one that says a city/town was submerged under the sea and that is then speculated to be Atlantis - that's not the same thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


i don't exactly understand what you want. the use of the word atlantis before plato? see herodotus. google atlas and hyperborea, atlantes and atlantis in googlebooks. if you don't think its the same folks oh well. the word atlantis is used in the english translation of herodotus harte provided. it involves the pillars of hercules, the people of atlas, a hill around which they lived and a sandbar just like plato.

can i show you the texts where atlantis in its non greek form is discussed. i can but will you read it? i can't do wiki and its almost a million words. you really need to read it all.

i can start with pictures of scientifically what was going on 12,000 years ago. its all from good current scientific journals. none of them was thinking atlantis of course but there is scads of information and alot of it will very much surprise. there were people doing what plato said when plato said they were doing it. it is quite amazing. there were seas in funny places too and thats a legal fact that not one of the 11,000plus authors on atlantis knew.

but it all comes down to whats on the ground. atlantis is a big thing and alot of stuff happened there. its well described and pictorialized. what is on the ground will show which story is the best. my money is on yima being the original. the greeks thought zoroaster lived 5000 years before the fall of troy. if mythology is right then science will prove it.

can i show you the pen at gadiera which survived the flood? probably. can i show you the real troy? probably. can i show you okeanos potamos and the pelagos of atlas? yes. can i show you the temple complex of apollo. probably. can i show you the grand canals and ports of atlantis? i think so but our geologist friends will tell us. the judgement happens in june and by well qualified people for sure. no bosnian bullcrud.

i put some pics up in my gallery. can you see them?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 


Hi,

Thanks, but I didn't ask for any of that. Plato talked of a city that became sumerged under the sea and called it Atlantis. Regardless of what is made of the work of Herodotus, he's talking about what appears to be Mount Atlas - nothing to do with what Plato wrote about. You said Platos Atlantis was 'being babbled about' by many civilisations prior to his writing. Plato's Atlantis is very specific, can you provide links to that being referred to please.

And thanks, actually most people on here can use Google, I'm just aware of any information with full provenance that shows where the Atlantis Plato wrote about was referred to before he made it up.

And by the way, you're rambling. Half your post has nothing to do with Atlantis which is the point you were responding to. "There were seas in funny places, that's a legal fact"....... what is that supposed to mean? Given the key definition of sea is 'an expanse of salt water', what do you mean by funny places?

I'm kind of guessing you'll come back with more procrastination but I'm hoping you won't. And if you tell me to do my own research, I'll tell you that the city known as Atlantis described by Plato was first referenced by Plato in a work of fiction. At this point anything else is supposition and speculation.

Zoroaster living 5,000 years before the fall of Troy? As the fall of Troy is not actually scientifically dated that is a bit out there, but how would science 'prove the myth?' what evidence will prove or disprove? And if it does manage to provide the date an individual may have lived.... so what?

edit on 10-2-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


so what is the issue with north africa? i don't get it. has north africa been excluded as a location? plato mentions a central hill, a shoal [sandbar], people living around the hill, the whole thing being named for atlas, and the pillars of hercules. herodotus says the exact same thing but adds libya. so what. read critias and timaeus. atlantis only stays submerged for a little while. i read in black and white the text harte posted for me to look at and it says the word atlantis. what can i do?

i can say they talked about atlantis and show you a thousand pages where it says nothing that will make you happy. thats just the way you've structured your question so all i can say is that you should read about yima. you should read about enki and his bolts and the abzu. you should read about re and his hidden circles built for him in neserser. these things you can read.

but as i said the proof is on the ground. again.. atlantis as the story says was only submerged for a while and in reality noone on earth was allowed to go there and look in modern times. however odd and unbelievable that is.. its true.

it seems that this is a touchy thing for you. just wait and see if its all true. the big atlantis conference this year is promising a "revolution". wait and see if they can deliver.

.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by something wicked
 


so what is the issue with north africa? i don't get it. has north africa been excluded as a location? plato mentions a central hill, a shoal [sandbar], people living around the hill, the whole thing being named for atlas, and the pillars of hercules. herodotus says the exact same thing but adds libya. so what. read critias and timaeus. atlantis only stays submerged for a little while. i read in black and white the text harte posted for me to look at and it says the word atlantis. what can i do?

i can say they talked about atlantis and show you a thousand pages where it says nothing that will make you happy. thats just the way you've structured your question so all i can say is that you should read about yima. you should read about enki and his bolts and the abzu. you should read about re and his hidden circles built for him in neserser. these things you can read.

but as i said the proof is on the ground. again.. atlantis as the story says was only submerged for a while and in reality noone on earth was allowed to go there and look in modern times. however odd and unbelievable that is.. its true.

it seems that this is a touchy thing for you. just wait and see if its all true. the big atlantis conference this year is promising a "revolution". wait and see if they can deliver.

.




No, that's fine thanks. I thought you may deliver on what you said but you obviously can't. The references you suggested I look at do not in any way show that the Atlantis of Plato is referenced anywhere before he wrote his fictional account. Herodotus is clearly not referring to the same place as Plato, as Harte pointed out, Herodotus speaks of travel inland and there is no reference to areas closer to the coast becoming submerged. Plato wrote a story. Was there an element of truth within? Dunno, it's a bit late to ask him.

I would be interested in what you think an Atlantis conference will deliver and why it will be a revolution though - it will be reported that a sunken city cited as Atlantis has been discovered? That would be immensely interesting to some, but hardly a revolution, or are you suggesting it will be more than that?

ETA, it's really not a touchy thing for me. You made a claim, I'm interested in the subject and asked for substance, you haven't provided - that's all. I'm only interested in substance - evidence, not conjecture and speculation with nothing to back it up.
edit on 10-2-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


yeah thats what i expected. you say you went and researched all those things that quick.you are superman and thats impossible. where did you find the information on enki and the bolts? tell me? where did you find the information on re and neserser? tell me.

so i have read it all and you have not but you rattle on still. harte hasn't read anything either but you all rattle on. thats really pretty silly. i notice at least he doesn't insist the anunnaki weren't sumerian anymore since his beloved wiki won't even back him up.

well unfortunately for you all, herodotus says atlantis. its right there in black and white. perhaps you should investigate the getuli and find out why the atlas mountains in africa are named thusly.

lets see whats revolutionary about atlantis. well noahs ark isn't a boat. its the cursus that survived the flooding of atlantis and its in serbia. that would be something wouldn't it?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by something wicked
 


yeah thats what i expected. you say you went and researched all those things that quick.you are superman and thats impossible. where did you find the information on enki and the bolts? tell me? where did you find the information on re and neserser? tell me.

so i have read it all and you have not but you rattle on still. harte hasn't read anything either but you all rattle on. thats really pretty silly. i notice at least he doesn't insist the anunnaki weren't sumerian anymore since his beloved wiki won't even back him up.

well unfortunately for you all, herodotus says atlantis. its right there in black and white. perhaps you should investigate the getuli and find out why the atlas mountains in africa are named thusly.

lets see whats revolutionary about atlantis. well noahs ark isn't a boat. its the cursus that survived the flooding of atlantis and its in serbia. that would be something wouldn't it?









Errrm, I didn't need to be a superman and go away and research at that point, research already done states that Plato is the first person to mention Atlantis. It's been something I've taken a partial interest in due to people who seem to think it's something other than a fable. I uh, think I understand your wavelength now and I'll leave you to go on your own sweet way with it.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


so you are one of those guys that thinks they are real smart and just can't bear to be shown they know nothing huh. i like it when people teach me something but you type, you ignore and run away like little kiddies.

did you jnow that a sea covered europe at the end of the ice age? none of those people who yo depend on to tell you plato is fantasy did. that wouldn't make me feel confident. new sea, thats new science, everything we know related has to be reexamined and that just good science.


edit on 11-2-2011 by Parta because: nudity



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Parta
 


So Atlantis is at the bottom of the Black Sea?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join