If Atlantis was so advanced why no satellites?

Originally posted by Kacen
Simply put, we use the term advanced civilization to mean advanced for its time. That means that assuming the Atlanteans existed, compared to other civilizations of there time, they were pretty advanced, but not more advanced than us.

That makes sense.

The "other outside" of the box in a way, lol.



NN

Or mabye they never existed!

It could be possible that the Atlanteans didn't need to have a satellite system in place because they were the only advanced civilization to exist on a primitive planet or we haven't discovered them yet.

We assume that we're technologically advanced when if fact we are just now starting to understand things that completely eluded us ten or twenty years ago (e.g.: nano-technology)

Maybe one day man will look at us and say, "Damn! They sure were backwards in their thinking. Everyone knows that it doesn't take such a behemoth of a machine to telecommunicate around the world and the contraptions they used to put them into space!! I'm glad I'm living now with our advances than to live in such a primitve thinking society."

I wonder if 10,000 years from now people on earth will read science-fiction books from out time and think we had faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc.

Why do you need satellites?

As Gazrok and others who have studied this VERY extensively point out, the "Atlanteans" that Plato writes about were not super-advanced. They had Bronze-age Greek technology 9,000 years before the Greeks had it (according to Plato.)

The "crystal vibrations"/flight/superpowers bits actually come not from Plato or any ancient source, but mainly from Edgar Cayce and some of his friends, who "channeled" this information.

So far, the "channeled" information has turned out to be very wrong (including that Atlantis would rise from the sea in the 1970's)

So many times when I see the subject of "Advanced Civilisations" in Earths past brought up, they are measured against the technology of today.
Any past civilisation may well have possessed superior technology in our eyes but using power sources as yet untapped by "modern" man.
It's arrogant to think that mankind today is the most advanced that it has ever been.

Science is advancing all the time and new data makes the technological breakthroughs of a couple of decades ago seem primitive by comparison.
Also, science still seems to follow the same Newtonian rules and rarely seems to veer from this path. Some who do are quickly called crackpots for proposing an alternative.
I guess time will tell if we are to advance much further and discover alternatives to the current scientific dogma. If we don't all get blown up by our advanced shiny toys in the meantime of course

Maybe atlantis got its ass kicked in a thermonuclear war, becouse I honestly doubt atlantis was a spiritual masturbation land.

Originally posted by swampcricket
If Atlantis was as advanced as people say and the Aliens assisted them with technology why haave we not found evidence of of satellite? Why no signs of advanced technology at all? Or have we?

Why satelites while they might have been able to astral project, to ESP, to use their mind to locate things, to see places, no sats needed, all we do make is to further destroy or to further make our possibilities as a human being dormant. We are more than what is seen about us. The more we make, the more we just focus on our body, or the more we think we are the body, this could be seen as a conspiracy. The leaders of this world, building our society the way we just become useless slaves, zombie-like bodys, they say jump you say how high. We've got to take the power back!

Originally posted by Britguy
So many times when I see the subject of "Advanced Civilisations" in Earths past brought up, they are measured against the technology of today.
Any past civilisation may well have possessed superior technology in our eyes but using power sources as yet untapped by "modern" man.

That is almost as absurd as it gets. Certainly we cannot just dismiss the possibility that some unknown and as-yet untapped power source could have been used by some ancient civilization of which we have never heard. However, power sources, no matter how "magical" or advanced, still require accompanying power trains in order for the power to be used. We also must remember that the power trains must connect with some sort of mechanism or tool, or why tap the mysterious power in the first place? It is these objects (machines, power trains, etc.) that have been sought and have turned out to be conspicuously absent from the archaeological record.

Better to argue that some ancient unknown civilization could create whatever they needed by using pure mindpower. That is the only way that they would leave no traces behind.

Originally posted by BritguyIt's arrogant to think that mankind today is the most advanced that it has ever been.

It's not "arrogant" to think so, it's close-minded. Any scientist worth his salt will never make any definitive statement about any situation that cannot be demonstrated, like how it cannot be demonstrated that we today represent the most advanced that Man has ever been.

That being said, however, it's perfectly legitimate to believe and state that we are the most advance Man has ever been as far as we are able to determine. And unless we start finding 10,000 year old tractors (whatever their power source), then this situation is very unlikely to change.

Originally posted by BritguyScience is advancing all the time and new data makes the technological breakthroughs of a couple of decades ago seem primitive by comparison.
Also, science still seems to follow the same Newtonian rules and rarely seems to veer from this path. Some who do are quickly called crackpots for proposing an alternative.

Gee, how'd they make these fantastic "technological breakthroughs"? Must've just been dumb luck, I guess, since they were following old, outdated "Newtonian" rules which is like wearing blinders and doesn't allow for any innovation, at least according to you. Can't have it both ways, Britguy.

In fact, there are very few "Newtonian" rules being followed by scientists these days. And the ones that are being followed give us excellent results, why would they be "followed" if they didn't?

I assume by "Newtonian" you mean "accepted" scientific methodology. If that is what you mean, you should remember that science does not become accepted just because a bunch of old farts sitting around decide that it "sound's good to me." Accepted scientific theory and methods gain acceptence because the results they yeild are repeatable and predictive. Science does not pretend to have all the answers, though. If you have some new methodology or even an entirely new paradigm for investigating the nature of reality which would outperform what's called "The Scientific Method," why, then you should come out with it. But I warn you, you'll have to show how and why it outperforms the scientific method before it will gain acceptance.

Regarding crackpots, some crackpots have actually followed the scientific method and reached a point that seemed completely beyond belief to their peers at the time. These individuals (usually) suffered more than they deserved in various ways but have always been shown to either be correct in the end, or wrong in an understandable way in the end. Other crackpots have just been disseminating what amounts to pure speculation, and some of these have purposely misled their readers and mischaracterized valid scientific findings in order to acheive monetary success (conned us, in other words), like Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchen, Michael Cremo and Erik VonDaniken.

Of course, some crackpots are just insane.

Harte

When I was a kid, in the seventies ( I'm 38 ), from my parents I've heard about a story about an unknown satellite, broadcasting a message ( don't know wich one ) in almost all the human language and no nations on earth had aknowledged it was one of her satellite.

I didn't find anything with google but I didn't look deep.

P.S : My parents aren't paranoid nuts spreading urban legend, especially my father.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ultra_phoenix]

Some might suggest that there are in order various technologies in complexity:
bring electricity, magnetics, and light wave. If this was so then human kind being more advanced than some life in this galaxy would be crude compared to other life out there.

In regards Cayce: my understanding is that many of his readings are still under review. A good percentage of his readings were health and disease related for specific individuals and the success rate of his diagnosis and cures was very high. This is documented by established professionals I do believe also.

Originally posted by swampcricket
If Atlantis was as advanced as people say and the Aliens assisted them with technology why have we not found evidence of of satellite?

IMHO...

If you are on the losing end of a war, your satellites are one of the first targets to be destroyed

Horrendous environmental changes, like the tilting of the world on its axis, worldwide earthquakes, and The Great Flood (which is documented in various ancient cultures), don't just happen due to the alignment of planets and geological cycles. It takes a lot more energy to do that. Like an asteroid strike. But even that would not have wiped out Atlantis completely. They would have had ample notice of the collision and time to move their advanced machines and high-tech factories to safer locations.

Not so in a losing war scenario.

The only other thing which could have caused the horrendous environmental changes that occurred at the time of the fall of Atlantis is a major attack from space. A holocaust that was initiated by a military that had superior weapons and a much more extensive industrial base.

The Atlanteans were known to the people in ancient India to not only be imperialistic but also to have weapons that could level an entire city (i.e., nuclear weapons). Atlanteans were generally thought of as unrivaled and unconquerable.

If the big guy on the block is unstoppable and is suddenly stopped, then it is a logical conclusion that the victor must not only be more formidable but also not from around here.

To make a long story short...

The Atlanteans attempted their own War of Independence from the aliens that the Sumerians labeled the Anunnaki...and lost.

Originally posted by swampcricket
Why no signs of advanced technology at all? Or have we?

There are bits and pieces that have been uncovered - fragments of advanced technology from the distant past. For example, years ago I cut out a newspaper clipping of an archeological find in China. They dug up what amounted to be an ancient CD player and battery to power it which was many hundreds of years old. When they played the CD, it sounded to the archeologists like ancient Tibetan music.

Check out the video documentary called The Mysterious Origins of Man.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Horrendous environmental changes, like the tilting of the world on its axis, worldwide earthquakes, and The Great Flood (which is documented in various ancient cultures), don't just happen due to the alignment of planets and geological cycles. It takes a lot more energy to do that. Like an asteroid strike. But even that would not have wiped out Atlantis completely. They would have had ample notice of the collision and time to move their advanced machines and high-tech factories to safer locations.

Paul,
I'll agree that, if some advanced yet unknown civilization that had satellites ever existed, then we shouldn't expect to still see their satellites in orbit today. But there's no evidence that the world ever "tilted ...on it's axis..." (beyond normal precession, that is) or that there was some kind of ancient war between spacefaring peoples here. Also, there's no evidence that Atlantis, even if it existed (no evidence of that either) had any advanced technology of any kind. "No evidence" means "no reason at all to believe it." The only ancient reference on Atlantis (Plato) makes no mention of anything like this, but does assert that the Atlanteans were defeated by essentially bronze-age Greeks (albeit Plato's date puts these Greeks in a time period before the bronze age began.)

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by swampcricket
Why no signs of advanced technology at all? Or have we?

There are bits and pieces that have been uncovered - fragments of advanced technology from the distant past... For example, years ago I cut out a newspaper clipping of an archeological find in China. They dug up what amounted to be an ancient CD player and battery to power it which was many hundreds of years old. When they played the CD, it sounded to the archeologists like ancient Tibetan music.

Check out the video documentary called The Mysterious Origins of Man.

Judging by the emoticon, I can't tell if you're serious, so just let me say that M.O.M. was a "documentary" that laid out a bunch of goofy ideas originally published in Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology," a compendium of hoaxes and other crapola Cremo put together with his parter whathisname (I can't remember) under the auspices of the Hindus, who have a religious stake in Mankind being here on the Earth for millions of years.
In other words, don't even think that Cremo is a reputable source for any of this.
The site you linked links to an M.O.M. assertion of Mankind being here around the time of the Dinosaurs (called "Jurassic Art) where they use the Ica Stones and the Acambaro Figures as evidence. The Ica Stones have been shown to be hoaxed, and a couple of people admitted as much, while the Acambaro Figures have never been dated. Does anyone here really wonder why the owner of the Acambaro Figures hasn't allowed them to be dated?

These are only two quick examples. Cremo also uses the tired old "objects found embedded in coal seams," the "human footprints next to dinosaur footprints," and several other arguments that he borrowed from the Creationists. No matter the point they try to make, Cremo et al. never give the opposing viewpoint, so it comes off as if all the world's scientists are just scratching their heads at these AMAZING FINDS that they list. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Want more on how wrong Cremo is?
home.austarnet.com.au...
or
www.talkorigins.org...
or
www.talkorigins.org...
or
www.xmission.com...
or
www.skeptictank.org...

Some of the above links might not work, haven't been to them in a while.

Regarding your assertion about some ancient CD-type technology, that's utterly false and I can only assume you're talking about the Dropa Stones, which were also exposed as a hoax (they were first reported in a tabloid newspaper for God's sake and the "scientists" that "studied" them never existed.)

Anyone needs more on Cremo or the Dropa Stones, let me know. That is, if you really want to know the truth of the matter. I'm aware that believing this sort of hogwash is a lot more fun than finding out how slickly you've been lied to.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Horrendous environmental changes, like the tilting of the world on its axis, worldwide earthquakes, and The Great Flood (which is documented in various ancient cultures), don't just happen due to the alignment of planets and geological cycles. It takes a lot more energy to do that. Like an asteroid strike. But even that would not have wiped out Atlantis completely. They would have had ample notice of the collision and time to move their advanced machines and high-tech factories to safer locations.

Paul,
I'll agree that, if some advanced yet unknown civilization that had satellites ever existed, then we shouldn't expect to still see their satellites in orbit today. But there's no evidence that the world ever "tilted ...on it's axis..." (beyond normal precession, that is) or that there was some kind of ancient war between spacefaring peoples here.

The video documentary that I mentioned above and related sources talk about a significant shift that occurred around the time of Atlantis. If you simply want to ignore that avant garde report and others like it, that is entirely up to you. However, in doing so, it points towards you furthering a perspective that is derived out of prejudice and ignorance.

In regard to wars in the distant past which utilized weapons of mass destruction, you need to do more research on that as well and/or you simply have chosen to ignore evidence which confirms it.

The Evidence For Ancient Atomic Warfare

I don't have the problem in being biased about anything since I have no agenda to further. When there is significant evidence and cogent arguments put forth, I take them seriously. Especially since I have seen firsthand evidence of bias and prejudice in the scientific community in general, and also within the educational system that I work for.

Originally posted by swampcricket
Regarding your assertion about some ancient CD-type technology, that's utterly false and I can only assume you're talking about the Dropa Stones, which were also exposed as a hoax (they were first reported in a tabloid newspaper for God's sake and the "scientists" that "studied" them never existed.)

It wasn't taken from a tabloid but from a Washington newspaper

You insult my intelligence in your assumption that I don't know the difference between the Dropa Stones and an ancient CD player.

Again...this points to you furthering a stance that is based in prejudice and ignorance.

The Washington newspaper obviously has more credibility than you as well as knowledge about the archeological finding in Red China. You apparently don't know anything about it and are unwilling to even entertain the thought of it having ever happened.

I have also come to know that Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock, as well as all the other scientists and researchers that are in The Mysterious Origins of Man documentary to be quite credible, unbiased and well researched

You obviously have none of these qualities and are not credible or objective in our analysis, which leads you to embracing antiquated conclusions that are unfortunately still being furthered in classrooms.

Those antiquated conclusions will change.

Count on it

DENY IGNORANCE

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The video documentary that I mentioned above and related sources talk about a significant shift that occurred around the time of Atlantis. If you simply want to ignore that avant garde report and others like it, that is entirely up to you. However, in doing so, it points towards you furthering a perspective that is derived out of prejudice and ignorance.

Hmm, "...around the time of Atlantis," eh? This statement alone points out your obvious bias and complete lack of objectivity, considering the verifiable fact that no evidence of even the possible existence of Atlantis has ever been found. Of course, somehow that doesn't prevent you from actually dating these undiscovered remains and ruins!
You state that the "...documentary... and related sources talk about a significant shift..." Paul, please. Talk is cheap. One may safely "ignore" (as you accuse me of) talk when no evidence at all is presented.
Again, there exists nowhere on Earth any evidence of any "significant shift" of Earths polar axes at any point in geological history. Sure, we can talk all day about such a shift, and con men out to make a buck can use these kinds of misleading arguments to try to convince poor saps to empty their pockets for a collection of worthless books on the idea (magic beans would be a better investment,) but all the "talk"in the world is meaningless in the absence of evidence, for without evidence, there is, again, no reason at all to believe it.

Originally posted by Paul_RichardIn regard to wars in the distant past which utilized weapons of mass destruction, you need to do more research on that as well and/or you simply have chosen to ignore evidence which confirms it.

The Evidence For Ancient Atomic Warfare

Sorry Paul, but it is you that needs to do more research.
From your link:

Brad Steiger and Ron Calais report in their book, Mysteries of Time and Space,1 that Albion W. Hart, one of the first engineers to graduate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was assigned an engineering project in the interior of Africa. While he and his men were travelling to an almost inaccessible region, they first had to cross a great expanse of desert.

"At the time he was puzzled and quite unable to explain a large expanse of greenish glass which covered the sands as far as he could see," writes Margarethe Casson in an article on Hart's life in the magazine Rocks and Minerals (no. 396, 1972).

Mysterious Glass in the Egyptian Sahara
One of the strangest mysteries of ancient Egypt is that of the great glass sheets that were only discovered in 1932. In December of that year, Patrick Clayton, a surveyor for the Egyptian Geological Survey, was driving among the dunes of the Great Sand Sea near the Saad Plateau in the virtually uninhabited area just north of the southwestern corner of Egypt, when he heard his tyres crunch on something that wasn't sand. It turned out to be large pieces of marvellously clear, yellow-green glass....

Furthermore, LDG seems to be too pure to be derived from a messy cosmic collision. Wright mentions that known impact craters, such as the one at Wabar in Saudi Arabia, are littered with bits of iron and other meteorite debris. This is not the case with the Libyan Desert Glass site. What is more, LDG is concentrated in two areas, rather than one. One area is oval-shaped; the other is a circular ring, six kilometres wide and 21 kilometres in diameter. The ring's wide centre is devoid of the glass.
Alternatively, is it possible that the vitrified desert is the result of atomic war in the ancient past? Could a Tesla-type beam weapon have melted the desert, perhaps in a test?

From my "Favorites" folder:

Boston University researchers have discovered the remnants of the largest crater of the Great Sahara of North Africa.
Researchers from Boston University have discovered the remnants of the largest crater of the Great Sahara of North Africa, which may have been formed by a meteorite impact tens of millions of years ago. Dr. Farouk El-Baz made the discovery while studying satellite images of the Western Desert of Egypt with his colleague, Dr. Eman Ghoneim, at BU's Center for Remote Sensing...
And, since its shape points to an origin of extraterrestrial impact, it will likely prove to be the event responsible for the extensive field of “Desert Glass” – yellow-green silica glass fragments found on the desert surface between the giant dunes of the Great Sand Sea in southwestern Egypt.

Source: www.physorg.com...
Of course, this was a fairly recent find so perhaps you hadn't heard of it? That is, assuming you thought it wasn't a waste of time to look into possible natural causes of these glass formations. From your posts, I can see that it would indeed be a precarious assumption to make to think perhaps you might try to investigate both sides (the scientific and the ignorant) of artifactual evidence.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I don't have the problem in being biased about anything since I have no agenda to further. When there is significant evidence and cogent arguments put forth, I take them seriously. Especially since I have seen firsthand evidence of bias and prejudice in the scientific community in general, and also within the educational system that I work for.

Riiiight. No bias? Riiiight. Then why do you so readily accept, oh, let's say the Ancient Atomic Warfare stupidity over a natural, scientific, logical, and easily understandable explanation? I'll tell you why, it is because you are biased and unobjective, obviously. I say obviously because it is obvious from your stance on these ideas. Even in cases where science can perfectly, easily and in an understandable way explain these artifacts that others claim are "Ancient Technology!" or whatever, you still come down on the side of the fantastic. I already said I understand this, in my previous post. It is much more exciting, after all, to let one's imagination run wild enough so that one may live in some kind of fantastic world where weird things have happened. Life is so boring, after all. Also, it allows one to believe (at least to oneself) that "I am privy to mysterious and strange information that others know nothing about." This gives such a "believer" the intellectual edge he has longed for all his life, with none of the dull and boring work usually associated with actually becoming educated!

Originally posted by Paul_RichardYou insult my intelligence in your assumption that I don't know the difference between the Dropa Stones and an ancient CD player.

Again...this points to you furthering a stance that is based in prejudice and ignorance.

The Washington newspaper obviously has more credibility than you as well as knowledge about the archeological finding in Red China. You apparently don't know anything about it and are unwilling to even entertain the thought of it having ever happened.

Gee Paul, you didn't hesitate to link us to the worthless Cremo M.O.M. ripoff website, why no link to your "reputable" source about some ancient Chinese CD player?
As far as I can see, anyone that actually believes that archaeologists have dug up an ancient electronic CD player with CD and battery is being purposefully ignorant (the worst kind of ignorance.)

Originally posted by Paul_RichardI have also come to know that Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock, as well as all the other scientists and researchers that are in The Mysterious Origins of Man documentary to be quite credible, unbiased and well researched

You obviously have none of these qualities and are not credible or objective in our analysis, which leads you to embracing antiquated conclusions that are unfortunately still being furthered in classrooms.

You have "...come to know.." this, have you? Well, you've somehow "come to know" something that is completely devoid of legitimacy. Cremo and Hancock are two of the worst liars and con men in the pseudoarchaeology field. Neither person is qualified to speak on any scientific subject, and both are well versed enough in the lingo to successfully pretend that they can. Both individuals use and reuse old anecdotal evidence that they both know has been utterly refuted and debunked, time and time again, to make the same old arguments. Cremo plays it slightly closer to the vest, that is, you don't see him out there interviewing like Hancock, to Hancock's credit. But Hancock has admitted that he mischaracterizes, misquotes and generally misguides his readers in his fanciful books. His excuse? "It's what my readers expect."
Both guys are, however, at least a couple of steps up the ladder from that vile idiot Zechariah Sitchen.

Originally posted by Paul_RichardDENY IGNORANCE

Placing this at the end of your post as lip service to some idea that you (apparently) cannot grasp will not help legitimize your own serious problems in the area of objectivity, nor will it make your positions seem more "anti-ignorant," until you decide to cease utilizing ignorance itself in the process of forming your opinions.

Harte

This is hilarious.

Originally posted by Harte
Cremo and Hancock are two of the worst liars and con men in the pseudoarchaeology field. Neither person is qualified to speak on any scientific subject, and both are well versed enough in the lingo to successfully pretend that they can. Both individuals use and reuse old anecdotal evidence that they both know has been utterly refuted and debunked, time and time again, to make the same old arguments. Cremo plays it slightly closer to the vest, that is, you don't see him out there interviewing like Hancock, to Hancock's credit...
Both guys are, however, at least a couple of steps up the ladder from that vile idiot Zechariah Sitchen.

All three of the above scientists have more integrity than you will ever hope to embrace, in this life as well as the next. :p

Are you expecting us to believe that you have more credibility, more knowledge and more experience in this field and related ones than Zecharia Sitchin, Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock?

You're joking...right?



Thanks for the entertaining post.

I needed a good laugh.

I'm not sure I understand the thread title.

Let's put aside whether Atlantis existed or not - What makes one think that a civilisation, advanced or not, would develop in precisely the same way as that of the Earth as it is now?

I mean we could easily as ask 'If Atlantis was so advanced why no satellites?' as we could 'If Atlantis was so advanced why no microwaves ovens'? or 'If Atlantis was so advanced why no Teletubbies?'

Surely it's a judgement call as to what makes an 'advanced' civilisation?

Playing Devil's advocate: If Atlantis had interdimensional travel and a deeper respect and understanding for the properties of our natural surroundings - Would that make them more advanced than our use of satelite dishes and Pop Idol?

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
This is hilarious.

Originally posted by Harte
Cremo and Hancock are two of the worst liars and con men in the pseudoarchaeology field. Neither person is qualified to speak on any scientific subject, and both are well versed enough in the lingo to successfully pretend that they can. Both individuals use and reuse old anecdotal evidence that they both know has been utterly refuted and debunked, time and time again, to make the same old arguments. Cremo plays it slightly closer to the vest, that is, you don't see him out there interviewing like Hancock, to Hancock's credit...
Both guys are, however, at least a couple of steps up the ladder from that vile idiot Zechariah Sitchen.

All three of the above scientists have more integrity than you will ever hope to embrace, in this life as well as the next. :p

Are you expecting us to believe that you have more credibility, more knowledge and more experience in this field and related ones than Zecharia Sitchin, Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock?

Hmm, more credibility than a former Economics History major, a failed British journalist, and an undegreed, dropout author? Yep, I'd say I wouldn't exactly be bragging if I were to make this claim.
Regarding knowledge and experience in the field, I'm certain I have more than Cremo. But that's no biggie, I'm also certain that you have more than Cremo as well.
Hancock and Sitchen have at least had a go at working for a living in the real world, though none of these three have ever done any actual archaeological work. Nor have I, though I have located and classified a few fossils in my spare time, more, I'm sure, than Cremo, Sitchen and Hancock combined. So it would depend on what you mean by knowledge and experience. I am not knowledgeable about the best way to manipulate a large number of people too lazy to find out for themselves into buying bookloads of drivel. I am not experienced at fleecing unsuspecting strangers. So, perhaps these three have more knowledge and experience in these particular areas that you or I. Not exactly something for them to be proud of, though.

Also, where do you get off calling these three hacks "scientists?" Do you have any comprehension at all of the meaning of that word, and the amount of work it takes in order to gain that particular epithet?

Maybe you should become better acquainted with the work of actual scientists, you know, the ones that spend months at a time bent over in the Libyan, Gobi, American Southwestern or Iraqi desert, brushing off delicate finds, and actually translating their finds and interpreting the artifacts they located, so that a couple of years later one of these three guys can spend a few minutes reading what the real scientists wrote and figure out a way to say they didn't know what the hell they were talking about, based on their journalistic, economic, or (in Cremo's case) beach bum backgrounds.

A few reviews of Cremo's book Forbidden Archaeology:
www.mcremo.com...[/url]
A few reviews of Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology:
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.ramtops.co.uk...
The book, which came out in 1994, is old enough now that much of what was written about it, pro and con, is no longer available on the web, at least some the links I had saved no longer work.

You seem to enjoy humor. I'll leave you with a little of Cremo's bio, penned by Cremo, and taken from Cremo's website:

The soul that I am entered its present body at the moment I was conceived in the fall of 1947. I appeared from my mother's womb on July 15, 1948, in Schenectady, New York. That birth was probably one of millions I have experienced since I left my real home in the spiritual world. My mother tells me that when I was an infant, she would give me alphabet soup, and sometimes I would not eat it, but would just spell out words in the bowl. From that, I take it that I must have practiced writing in many previous existences. In this life, I recall always having wanted to be a writer.

During my last year of high school in St. Petersburg, Florida, I took a creative writing course. The next year I entered George Washington University. Over the next two years, I became immersed in the counterculture and gradually gave up my plans to enter government service. I continued my investigations into Eastern philosophy and esoteric spiritual teachings.

In 1968 I left college and went to Europe on a voyage of self-discovery. I took a boat from Haifa to Istanbul, where the pull toward the East was so strong that I found myself heading overland to India. I got as far as Tehran, lost my nerve, and turned back.

After carefully studying the Bhagavad-gita, a gift of some Hare Krishna people at a Grateful Dead concert, I decided that I should absorb myself in the yoga of devotion to the mysterious Lord Krishna. Later I moved to Los Angeles to join the staff of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and to write for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT). By 1980 I was regarded as an accomplished writer. To date, the books written and edited by myself and other BBT staff have sold more than ten million copies and have been translated into many languages.

Source: [url=http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm]

Scientist? Scientist? Bah! Come back to the real world, Paul.

Harte

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
I'm not sure I understand the thread title.

Let's put aside whether Atlantis existed or not - What makes one think that a civilisation, advanced or not, would develop in precisely the same way as that of the Earth as it is now?

(snip)

Thank you for that. Seems everything that is to ever be justified as having existed or not, be it on earth or in space, is based SOLEY upon our current civliization.

Such thinking will never return useful feedback - it will more than not, return: they/it didn't/don't exist, becasue there is nothing similar to what we have.

This whole thread is akin to post I saw somewhere here about "why do UFO's need running lights" - thinking in the box - because human aircraft use lights as markers, that's SURELY what species of another planet use them for. Sheesh.

NN