This Will Blow Your Mind! Anunnaki in the Antarctic?

a reply to: amsterdamn87

Ive realised its alot easier to be a skeptic than to have an open mind.

Being skeptical is keeping your mind open that what you are hearing and seeing might not or it might be right.

But really, the available info about this incident, doesn't in the least bit, seem suspicious?

A youtube video?

Yes it does make it seem suspicious, suspicious that there might not be any factual information other that names and places.

originally posted by: sled735

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: sled735
If you believe in psychic mediums talking to UFO's for Hitler then he kind of has every right to belittle you. Being gullible doesn't mean you have an 'open mind'

WELL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DO BELIEVE IN MEDIUMS. If they exist now, why couldn't they exist then?

Never mind. I'm not wasting my time on you.

Yeah, sled i wouldn't bother entertaining all of this negative backlash. some people cant entertain the fact that history and science is bought, sold and controlled just like the political arena. So people in an earnest quest for knowledge are just kept ignorant.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sled735


Do I think Atlantis existed? - Yes

I'm going to have to ask... why? It was mentioned in an allegorical tale by Plato, had absolutely NO other references against it at the time. It then became a bit of a fad later on in the 19th century and then new agers decided to embellish it as a place way ahead of its time with all manner of wonders being performed - for which of course there is absolutely - utterly - completely - no shred of evidence prior to said new agers dreaming it up and scamming the gullible.

Now, was there an allegorical nation that stood up to Athens but was ultimately defeated? Doesn't sound too far fetched. Did their island become submerged? Who knows! There is nothing to say that what Plato wrote wasn't without a basis - but as soon as you add in the new age nonsense it immediately becomes without any substance whatsoever.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: sled735
If you believe in psychic mediums talking to UFO's for Hitler then he kind of has every right to belittle you. Being gullible doesn't mean you have an 'open mind'

Ironically enough to dismiss ET / UFO's as being not real based on "evidence or lack there of" then the same should be applied to religions.

Wow. As per my previous post - why? Religion is based on faith, faith does not need proof because if it had proof you would not require faith.

ET (UFO does not equal ET, it means you have seen something and you don't know what it is) should be held to the same standard - it requires no proof, belief is all you need, is that what you think?

a reply to: sled735

So, the question is, who wrote this map? It seems to back up the theory that people with incredible knowledge (the Atlantis civilization?) could have done this with the help of an advanced civilization. Someone had to see it from the air, right?. Where did they get their advanced knowledge? Could it have been the Anunnaki?

en.wikipedia.org...

now that was hard task.

a reply to: uncommitted

Because I want to try and remain optimistic. If it exists it may very well fill in our past family trees so to speak. Technology / schematics / construction etc methods could be present and could possibly move humanity back to being nice towards one another.

Secondly there have been archeological discoveries of ancient cities that scientists today thought were myth.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sled735


Do I think Atlantis existed? - Yes

I'm going to have to ask... why? It was mentioned in an allegorical tale by Plato, had absolutely NO other references against it at the time. It then became a bit of a fad later on in the 19th century and then new agers decided to embellish it as a place way ahead of its time with all manner of wonders being performed - for which of course there is absolutely - utterly - completely - no shred of evidence prior to said new agers dreaming it up and scamming the gullible.

Now, was there an allegorical nation that stood up to Athens but was ultimately defeated? Doesn't sound too far fetched. Did their island become submerged? Who knows! There is nothing to say that what Plato wrote wasn't without a basis - but as soon as you add in the new age nonsense it immediately becomes without any substance whatsoever.

No "evidence"? I guess you've never heard of Edgar Casey? Aside from his work there is a research organization now dedicated to discovering the ruins of Atlantis. They have some interesting research.

Edgar Cayce’s A.R.E: The Search For Atlantis

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov
So, in other words, no evidence at all.

Harte

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for your input.

Much appreciated.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: sled735


Do I think Atlantis existed? - Yes

I'm going to have to ask... why? It was mentioned in an allegorical tale by Plato, had absolutely NO other references against it at the time. It then became a bit of a fad later on in the 19th century and then new agers decided to embellish it as a place way ahead of its time with all manner of wonders being performed - for which of course there is absolutely - utterly - completely - no shred of evidence prior to said new agers dreaming it up and scamming the gullible.

Now, was there an allegorical nation that stood up to Athens but was ultimately defeated? Doesn't sound too far fetched. Did their island become submerged? Who knows! There is nothing to say that what Plato wrote wasn't without a basis - but as soon as you add in the new age nonsense it immediately becomes without any substance whatsoever.

No "evidence"? I guess you've never heard of Edgar Casey? Aside from his work there is a research organization now dedicated to discovering the ruins of Atlantis. They have some interesting research.

Edgar Cayce’s A.R.E: The Search For Atlantis

Well, I know enough how to spell his name if that helps? Cayce claimed to be a visionary, he had nothing other than his words to cover what he believed. And no, their research doesn't show anything as to what may be the island that may be what Plato based his allegory on. It's not really that hard. Of course, no one disputes that islands have been submerged during this planets lifecycle. Imbuing their possible inhabitants with powers way above what is possible today is the work of the new age myth.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: sled735
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Ahhh... at last, backup has arrived!

Very good video! I thank you so much for sharing it with us.

How can you have an entrance under the North Polar ice cap to a Hollow Earth so is it on the sea bed if so were does the water go

Could be something opens portal in atmosphere or water somehow. What that something is could be anything from existing malfunctioning Aircraft/Naval device or something designed if not conscious associated...

Or we can just sprinkle magic pixie dust

originally posted by: sled735
So, the question is, who wrote this map?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say a guy named Piri Reis...after whom the map is named...

The Piri Reis map is a pre-modern world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis.

It seems to back up the theory that people with incredible knowledge (the Atlantis civilization?) could have done this with the help of an advanced civilization.

No, just no.

Not everything has to do with Atlantis or an 'advanced' civilisation.

Someone had to see it from the air, right?. Where did they get their advanced knowledge? Could it have been the Anunnaki?

No and no.

Firstly, the map was designed by Piri Reis himself, who was born in the town of Karaman, Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey). Secondly, the Anunnaki only appeared in mythological accounts of ancient civilisations located in the Mesopotamian region (Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian etc).

On a final note, there are many disputes as to whether Antarctica is even represented in the Piri Reis map itself:

The Antarctic coast:

There are two major discrepancies from known coastlines: the North American coast mentioned above, and the southern portion of the South American coast. On the Piri Reis map the latter is shown bending off sharply to the east starting around present-day Rio de Janeiro. A more popular interpretation of this territory has been to identify this section with the Queen Maud Land coast of Antarctica. This claim is generally traced to Arlington H. Mallery, a civil engineer and amateur archaeologist who was a supporter of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses. Though his assertions were not well received by scholars, they were revived in Charles Hapgood's 1966 book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. This book proposed a theory of global exploration by a pre-classical undiscovered civilization based on his analysis of this and other ancient and late medieval maps. More notoriously these claims were repeated in Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods (which attributed the knowledge of the coast to extraterrestrials) and Gavin Menzies's 1421: The Year China Discovered America (which attributed it to supposed Chinese voyages), both of which were roundly denounced by both scholars and debunkers of fringe works but which attracted huge popular followings.

A more sober analysis of these claims was published by Gregory McIntosh, a historian of cartography, who examined the map in depth in his book The Piri Reis Map of 1513 (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2000). He was able to find sources for much of the map in Columbus's writings. Certain peculiarities (such appearance of the Virgin Islands in two locations) he attributed to the use of multiple maps as sources; others (such as the errors in North American geography) he traced to the continued confusion of the area with East Asia. As far as the accuracy of depiction of the supposed Antarctic coast is concerned, there are two conspicuous errors. First, it is shown hundreds of miles north of its proper location; second, the Drake Passage is completely missing, with the Antarctic Peninsula presumably conflated with the Argentine coast. The identification of this area of the map with the frigid Antarctic coast is also difficult to reconcile with the notes on the map which describe the region as having a warm climate.

It should be kept in mind that maps of the period generally depicted a large continent named Terra Australis Incognita of highly variable shape and extent. This land was posited by Ptolemy as a counterbalance to the extensive continental areas in the northern hemisphere; due to a lack of exploration and various misunderstandings its existence was not fully abandoned until circumnavigation of the area during the second voyage of James Cook in the 1770s showed that if it existed, it was much smaller than imagined previously. The first confirmed landing on Antarctica was not until 1820, and the coastline of Queen Maud Land did not see significant exploration before Norwegian expeditions began in 1891. In 1513 Cape Horn had not yet been discovered, and indeed Ferdinand Magellan's voyage of circumnavigation was not to set sail for another six years. It is unclear whether the map maker saw South America itself as part of the unknown southern lands (as shown in the Atlas Miller), or whether (as Dutch thought) he drew what was then known of the coast with substantial distortion, but in any case serious scholarship holds that there is no reason to believe that the map is the product of genuine knowledge of the Antarctic coast.

en.wikipedia.org...

In simple terms, the claims that the Piri Reis map perfectly detailed Antarctica is pure BS.

Just a question. Did you even do some basic research or fact checking before jumping on and posting this thread?

a reply to: Harte

in other words, in your opinion there's no evidence. that's more accurate.

changed my mind because I won't sink to your level.

Here is a video that traces the origns of these theories.

a reply to: sled735
Regarding your other threads, I wouldn't know.

But this thread is based on nothing but lies.

Harte

originally posted by: sled735
a reply to: daaskapital

I think he IS!

Fair enough. I'm not one to say what can and cannot be expressed...

Also, i apologise if i come off as confrontational in my replies here. I do not intend to do so. Rather, i am just trying to provide the facts regarding the topic at hand...