The Atlantean Conspiracy

reply to post by freight tomsen


thanks for your book, I'm reading it at the moment. (might I suggest captions for the images? I'm unsure who some of them are)

as to hans etc being disinfo agents: While I do think such people exist, I also tried to "analyze" my own reactions/psychology and friends reactions when learning about some of this stuff, and think back to pre-paradigm shift (*) thoughts on similar sorts of things, and can understand why, even if some responses appear almost deliberately disingenuous etc, they can just be honest answers from another paradigm where the likelihood this is all made up is more than the likelihood there is actually a conspiracy...

In other words, I'll give em the benefit of the doubt for now (but I'm watching them..)

(plus they do know a lot more than me about the archeology side of things, so are good for bouncing ideas off, even if we disagree on whats plausable and whats not)

I do find it interesting that Hans dismisses all the etymological links with a simple "I'm not an etymological expert" (paraphrasing). I cant see how anyone could see all those examples and not seriously wonder how they could possibly be coincidental?

I would also like to know their thoughts on that atlantisquest site I linked, I honestly thought it was well done and fairly conclusive (nothing like all the other doubtful links I put up here) and would like to see what the doubters say about it. apparently no one is interested though.


(*) cant think of a less pretentious sounding way to put that, ah well.

From what I know, there were Vikings landing here long before Columbus ever did. That is really all I have. I don't know too much about the whole Atlantis deal.

Deny Ignorance.

DTOX X

I'd suggest performing your research from books that don't try to prove what they automatically assume is true.

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place. But then that's not as much fun as trying to conjure up some massive conspiracy as to why "they" are keeping this information from us, is it? It's also a lot less profitable.

Howdy Diablomonic

I'm not an expert in Etymology, which is why I posted only a funny piece on the error of giving excessive reliance to word list comparisons to promote connections between groups of people.

If you noticed, I comment only on FT's archaeological and history portion of his document. That part is full of errors and very poorly referenced. He refuses to address my comments directed at those portions. 'nough said, I take his omission as an acceptance that those materials are wrong and my arguments correct.

Essan your short note on Berlitz left out one key phrase, "crapola for money". Other than that it was great!

The view out the window is lovely.

Originally posted by freight tomsen
Thanks for your insight and keen intuition Diablo. They will deny it all day long and say I'm crazy, but the fact is Hanslune and Essan (and many others here on ATS) are cointel-pro disinformation agents

essan doesnt deny it, just look over to the left (though he is retired...)

back to the topic: Can anyone here tell me in what ways the de landa alphabet was right and in what ways it was wrong? this is from reading the donnelly book and being amazed at the page showing an apparent evolution of the letters from the de landa mayan script through various ancient scripts to our current day alphabet (or parts thereof), which was very convincing, then being dissapointed to find out Mayan script is syllabic not alphabetic (is that a word?) and that de landa was wrong. And yet the de landa alphabet was apparently considered the key that let us finally figure out mayan writing, so it cant have all been wrong...can it?


donelly link given here
www.sacred-texts.com...
see halfway down.

Is ANY of this still valid? if so, what
(I downloaded a big pdf on mayan script and heve been trying to puzzle it out myself, but surely someone here has some mayan knowledge and can help me out?)

cheers

Howdy Diablomonic

The Maya languages are logosyllabic and as you noted not alphabetic.*

When Donnelly was making stuff up the Maya language was not completely understood. Now that it has been "broken", Donnelly's stuff looks particularly silly. De Landa made the error of assuming that his informants understood what he wanted and he tried to interpret what they were saying based on his Spanish bias - all in all a botch job.

I would recommend:

Breaking the Maya Code (Paperback) by Michael D. Coe

Gives the details of how this discipherment was done - good book.

*While working in Mexico I learned a bit of the Yucatec Maya while working on sites around Merida. To many of our workers Spanish was a foreign language.

reply to post by Hanslune


fair enough, I guess, unqualified to speculate would seemingly be your defense here?
however perhaps keep that in mind the next time you consider stating something like "there is no evidence for...". (which I see bandied round here a lot, and it is often quite false. "there is little evidence for..." might be true, from a perspective, and "there is no uncontroversial evidence for..." is almost to be expected, given the topics, but there is usually some evidence, however little weight you give it (pararaph not necessarily aimed directly at you hans)

On the dodging questions side, I see that from everyone on divisive topics(including me I would imagine), people answer questions with what they see as suitable answers from their points of view, others don't think they have answered the question from their own point of view, original person cant be bothered elaborating because they think/know it will likely get them nowhere, both sides get annoyed, both sides think the other is being deceptive...(sometimes they are). I think tomsen is acting in good (short tempered) faith, and I think you are to, but I see both points of view.

Originally posted by dave420

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place

sure it was. A metaphor that people on both sides of the atlantic somehow shared. and didn't realize
was a metaphor.

Howdy Diablomonic

I think tomsen is acting in good (short tempered) faith, and I think you are to, but I see both points of view.

Well good then you can answer the questions the document is unable to answer - not that I expect you to - the short answer is that the document contains a great of misrepresentation and error in the area of archaeology.

The way scholarship works is that you produce an idea or a document then get input. You then discuss it and compare evidence - if your idea is wrong you make corrections or find more evidence.

Well the document was produced and input provided and the system then short-circuited on a ego overload fed by a bad case of nothavingtheanswers fever. LOL

Originally posted by Hanslune
When Donnelly was making stuff up the Maya language was not completely understood. Now that it has been "broken", Donnelly's stuff looks particularly silly. De Landa made the error of assuming that his informants understood what he wanted and he tried to interpret what they were saying based on his Spanish bias - all in all a botch job.

I'm not sure silly is the word I would use for that particular part of his book... Mistaken, sure, but if the rest of the letters from other alphabets were right, then it seemed like he did what would have seemed like some good research unfortunately based on bad data and therefore his conclusions (for that part) were wrong (rubbish in rubbish out as they say).

I'll have a look for that book you mentioned and see if I can get the answers I want. Basically the "letter" coincidences in donelly's book are fascinating and Im wondering if there is any possibility they had some significance even if mostly wrong? just how wrong was the de landa alphabet? random example is the symbol for 'S' given actually a symbol for a particulular syllable including 'S' (eg SU) or just pure nonsense? (repeat question for other letters).

Originally posted by diablomonic

Originally posted by dave420

For one thing, Atlantis was a metaphor, not a real place

sure it was. A metaphor that people on both sides of the atlantic somehow shared. and didn't realize
was a metaphor.

Unsubstatiated statement of faith.

Not factual in the least.

No people on either side of the Atlantic shared anything at all about anything even remotely resembling Atlantis, even with each other, much less across the Atlantic.

Even the Greeks and the Egyptians, the two main participants in Plato's tale, never heard of anything like Atlantis.

Harte

T & C came into the world unsupported.

Originally posted by diablomonic
Basically the "letter" coincidences in donelly's book are fascinating and Im wondering if there is any possibility they had some significance even if mostly wrong? just how wrong was the de landa alphabet? random example is the symbol for 'S' given actually a symbol for a particulular syllable including 'S' (eg SU) or just pure nonsense? (repeat question for other letters).

I'd go with the latter.

Mayan wasn't fully translatable until the 1980's, in fact

Donnally is going on the "translation" of Frenchman Brasseur de Bourbourg.

This gentlemen was the starting point for Le Plongeon's unfortunate "translations" that had the Mayan "Queen Moo" leaving home to start a new colony that later became Ancient Egypt.

BTW, Moo is also the origin of what folks here call "Mu," the supposedly lost Pacific continent.

Turns out some of the "letters" Le Plongeon was translating weren't even letters, weren't even syllables, weren't writing at all, they were actually numbers.

Sad, but still funny even today.

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune

Well good then you can answer the questions the document is unable to answer - not that I expect you to - the short answer is that the document contains a great of misrepresentation and error in the area of archaeology.

Happy to try...
(havent read all that much of it yet, maybe tonight)

The way scholarship works is that you produce an idea or a document then get input. You then discuss it and compare evidence - if your idea is wrong you make corrections or find more evidence.

true and agreed, however, if you think someone is attacking you, or not taking you seriously, you might tend to ignore them. Not sure if this is what happened, just an example.

Well the document was produced and input provided and the system then short-circuited on a ego overload fed by a bad case of nothavingtheanswers fever. LOL

maybe I should go back and reread the posts that started all this and give a slightly impartial view on this.

lets see: you asked about rockerfeller text books and made a relevant point about US-centric coverup.

He made a response to "read the book" and a perhaps poorly worded comment on your mindset on ancient cultures which I dont see as being intentionally offensive, but which I could certainly understand someone taking offense to.

I personally (think I) know what he means by rockerfeller text books, what he means is: ask the average high school graduate who discovered America, what will they answer? And while the answer depends on which country you ask it in, you are still unlikely to get an even vaguely accurate answer unless that person is a history buff... (and certainly they are not likely to know of any controversial "Atlantis related" or other controversial possibilities). He means they will know only what I might call 'bubblegum' history, simple semi propagandaish stories that may or may not even be true. Just because real history is out there does not mean 90% of people will know it.

next you had some questions on figures lets see: side lengths of pyramids, 225 vs 230 which you are of course, correct (only a 2% difference I might mention, I suppose you could forgive an ancient culture for getting it wrong by 2% after being separated for a while, depends if they are supposed to have built them at the same time or not, and if the cultures are supposed to have still been in contact at the time (according to FT's theory I mean). Then again, there are all those claims for amazing accuracy so on the GP...

Then you asked again about history outside the US: I believe I partly answered this: it's not about what you can find out with proper study, its about what the average person (say 80%) picks up during their "education". Ever seen a semi random sampling of Americans simply being asked to point out X country on a globe? very worrying to say the least. Or in my case, I'm not an Austrian I'm an Australian!... they are in entirely different parts of the world!

you then misinterpreted his (easy to misinterpret) "retarded" comment to be deliberately offensive, and made a good point about ancient man, in that they are thought to be somewhat identical in brain power etc to us now, just not have the same knowledge. I believe FT might be confusing stupider with less educated, not the same. He also commented on you basically being brainwashed, with which I'd agree (but I think almost everyone, including me , is, to some degree. Its can sometimes be VERY hard to separate real conspiracy from disinfo). Basically hes saying: You either switch paradigms or you dont, no point arguing for this within your paradigm because it wont fit, either you think there might be a coverup, or its all just unlikely speculation. I know why he said it, I also see why it annoyed you.

you then told him you would not read his book without him proving you should with new evidence (your right, but 1) how would he know what you have seen before, and 2)not likely to make him want to keep talking to you... )

You mentioned a quote, I cant find the full one to know what you mean about being deceptive, but what he gave is certainly attributed to him around the web. (allthough we've been through this a little before haven't we hans )

You ask about the yonaguni, I believe he answered and said yes, he did think it was man made, and to download the book and see. I've got to admit, the images (pg 287 288) are particularly convincing, though of course Im no geologist, but they are convincing enough for me to say the onus should (almost) now be on those trying to prove they are NOT man made, rather than the normal situation of the vice versa. And that if man made, it appears to go beyond the stone age sorts of things we are "supposed" to have been doing back then.

you ask about the opposite continent reference, which seems disingenuous, it seems plainly obvious he meant
"these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean" etc etc, and the expanded section of T certainly sounds to me to be talking about an island in the atlantic and america on the other side... but thats just me.

you then ask

Plato also wrote about there technology and weaponry, slingers and triremes - not particularly advanced - equal to the Greeks of Plato's day. Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced?

to which I'd answer: assuming plato's civilisation is pretty much how we think it is, he was telling a story passed on for thousands of years through low tech (ie ~bronze age, some 'worse') cultures. The language used could not be expected to be any another than that which they understood could it? surely you can see that. Also whether or not the civilisation had "vimanas" and "nuclear bombs" or was just a atlantic spanning maritime power, it is still relevant, dont you think?

you then state:

Also Plato states that they had an empire covering the Western Med - why no sign of it in the archaeological record?

again, somewhat disingenuous, given he just offered you a book you have declined to read called "the atlantean conspiracy", no less...! The answer is that it is mostly covered up Anyway, to this, I would like to point you again to www.atlantisquest.com, in the hope that you'll confirm or deny my thoughts that this has some decent evidence for its existence, from all round the world.


At this point, I'll give you my thoughts on all this (next post)

reply to post by diablomonic


It appears to me that he has written/compiled a comprehensive title on many different aspects of the global conspiracy. Note I did not say accurate, not because I think it is innacurate, but because I havent finsished reading it so dont know. It certainly covers a lot of ground in a somewhat unique style.

I agree with you he should definately attempt to reference it better, and that of course, as with any work, there will be/are errors.

I agree with him that it is a useful book, even if simply as a starting point to get people thinking/give them some idea about these many issues.

I agree with you that he should listen to and incorporate corrections but only if he thinks them valid in the paradigm from which he wrote the book ie: some of the claims will be hard to "prove" to the satisfaction of people such as yourself, but he accepts that is the case because of the very subject matter of the book

I understand why he got a bit touchy: he comes on here announcing a giant work he is giving to all of us free, and all I see on the first few pages are criticisms and insults. Sure its not your usual scholarly book. Its also not your usual scholarly topic, and this isnt your usual scholarly forum: "above top secret" implies at least a little more leeway in not being able to provide hard proof, doesnt it?

Finally...If you're going to pick on it, at least read it. It is of course your right not to, but it would seem only fair to keep the criticisms to a minimum if you don't.

I guess you missed the fact that I read his document and asked him questions from it.

He failed to respond

"Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced?"

Advanced is in the mind of the writer - there is no evidence for Atlantis being advanced. In the only known document that mentioned its , the T & C. Saying it's "advanced" is just making stuff up in face of the only source you have.

Stating that your evidence of the conspiracy has been covered up by the conspiracy leads one to ask, if it is all covered up - how do you know about it? Kinda circular.

Yonaguni looks like a number of other sites in the world were natural forces have made angular lines. In the land area above the underwater site is more of the same.

The quote on Colin Renfrew, I suspect he just took a net "quote" and added a bit more to it. If he had done proper research and citing he'd have that reference down to a page number and paragraph. He doesn't, until he can provide the page in the book he says he took it from it remains in my mind, "faked".

Pryamids, the 2% error is on the second rebuilding of the pyramid, 2300 years after the first - there is no correlation.

Books, Egyptian and UAE text books also contain that Columbus "discovered the Americas" (actually it was more of an encounter). it seems Rockerfeller controls the books in Arab countries too. My Chinese students also report that Columbus discovered the Americas - damn those Rockfellers are good.....the Chinese haven't heard about Menzies yet.

Originally posted by Harte

Unsubstatiated statement of faith.

Not factual in the least.

No people on either side of the Atlantic shared anything at all about anything even remotely resembling Atlantis, even with each other, much less across the Atlantic.

Even the Greeks and the Egyptians, the two main participants in Plato's tale, never heard of anything like Atlantis.

Harte

are you saying that people on both sides of the atlantic did not have stories about an island called aztlan/atlantis which they escaped from/got destroyed during a battle? or that the atlantes were not people living near the coast where refuges from a sunken atlantis might be expected to reach? or that ...insert lots of similar stuff here?

you don't accept it as fact, I do (well actually I just think it more likely than the mainstream story. In truth I accept very little as "fact" about anything anymore)

Originally posted by Hanslune
I guess you missed the fact that I read his document and asked him questions from it.

He failed to respond

"Please explain why you think he thought they were advanced?"

Advanced is in the mind of the writer - there is no evidence for Atlantis being advanced. In the only known document that mentioned its , the T & C. Saying it's "advanced" is just making stuff up in face of the only source you have.

advanced compared to no organised civilisation at all...I'd say thats pretty advanced. Also I assume he 'connects the dots' using things like the indian texts, but wont speculate any further on that till I've read up to there

Stating that your evidence of the conspiracy has been covered up by the conspiracy leads one to ask, if it is all covered up - how do you know about it? Kinda circular.

only if you assume a perfectly effective all powerful conspiracy (with no reason to leak any of this info). Why you would assume that , I dont know.
Also you seem to assume either they could never be organised enough to do it, or if they could they would be perfect (going from this and previous quotes in other topics) .

Yonaguni looks like a number of other sites in the world were natural forces have made angular lines. In the land area above the underwater site is more of the same.

I probably should look at them (above water examples) then before I comment any further.

The quote on Colin Renfrew, I suspect he just took a net "quote" and added a bit more to it. If he had done proper research and citing he'd have that reference down to a page number and paragraph. He doesn't, until he can provide the page in the book he says he took it from it remains in my mind, "faked".

why you would say that I dont know, he provided you with a link, google provides many others, sure he should have verified the original himself, and yes good scholarly books have proper references, but that doesn't mean he faked it? or do you mean the whole thing is faked (not by him) and its not even in the book?

Pryamids, the 2% error is on the second rebuilding of the pyramid, 2300 years after the first - there is no correlation.

agreed, and I know nothing else about this so I wont say any more than: 1) are we sure of the original size and 2) how are small issues like this relevant? sure he should fix them if wrong.. but... are you missing the woods for the trees?

Books, Egyptian and UAE text books also contain that Columbus "discovered the Americas" (actually it was more of an encounter). it seems Rockerfeller controls the books in Arab countries too. My Chinese students also report that Columbus discovered the Americas - damn those Rockfellers are good.....the Chinese haven't heard about Menzies yet.

1)FT's "ATLANTEAN conspiracy" has been around for a wee little while longer than the latest rockerfellers. Rockerfeller foundation just happens to be the one "in charge of" modifying the educational system of America (see minutes of early meetings, see huge US spending on education for dismal results, blame it on mismanagement or deliberate dumbing down, your choice) to their purposes. Most western nations are at least a little influenced by this (not to mention the conspiracy is supposedly more based in London/Europe than America). as to uae, china etc, well they get their info on us from what we tell them, where else are they gonna get it? If you watch "endgame" then china is apparently a 'very successful' test nation for testing out suppression and control methods, so no surprise they get the bubblegum history (not that they care who was the first european to discover america, they, apparently , got there first... ).

why you would say that I dont know, he provided you with a link, google provides many others, sure he should have verified the original himself, and yes good scholarly books have proper references, but that doesn't mean he faked it? or do you mean the whole thing is faked (not by him) and its not even in the book?

His link is to an unsourced web link - and the quote is different from the one he uses.

[buzzer sounds]

If you watch "endgame" then china is apparently a 'very successful' test nation for testing out suppression and control methods, so no surprise they get the bubblegum history (not that they care who was the first european to discover america, they, apparently , got there first...

Bizarre conspiracy: Russia and Eastern Europe had far superior methods of "control" but the conspiracy let all those nations lose, hey The fascist nations had even better ones and economic growth - why get rid of them?

Compare the world of 1913 to today? Which is more free? .....2008 by far, the colonies are gone, the monarchies are mostly gone, many men and women now have the vote, many people live under the rule of law, trade is more abundant, information flow up by 1000's%

Those rockerfella boys are sure morons when it comes to suppressing people LOL

reply to post by diablomonic

are you saying that people on both sides of the atlantic did not have stories about an island called aztlan/atlantis which they escaped from/got destroyed during a battle? or that the atlantes were not people living near the coast where refuges from a sunken atlantis might be expected to reach? or that ...insert lots of similar stuff here?

I believe this is where a major Western/Eastern hemisphere relationship problem occurs. From everything I've ever read about Aztlan, especially as to its alleged location from the Boturini Codex and the Aubin Codex, Aztlan was supposed to be located to the north or northwest of the Valley of Mexico. Sorry, but that doesn't equate to an island/continent in the Atlantic Ocean, which is EAST.

Also the Nahua people, ancestors to the Aztecs and others, have been shown to have immigrated from the north into Mexico around the 6th century. Genetics appears to back this up.

As to Yonaguni I still find it interesting that Robert Schoch, that renowned geologist who gave us the water erosion of the Sphinx theory, has also looked at the "monument" and declared it entirely NATURAL.

cormac