clocks and atlantis

The time thing is a curious piece of lore to the legend at any rate

No it isn't
as has already been proved Plato who is the only original source for the story didn't mention any clocks
so just because you can't tell the truth from the lies Cruizer doesn't mean that some fantasy world you want to be true exists
a question was asked
it was answered properly
if you want to carry on talking complete nonsense go do it somewhere you'll get accolades
theres plenty of pseudoarchaeology sites where your erroneous input would be welcomed and where gullible people would swallow it and thankyou for feeding it to them without any references or credible sources required
and where the stuff you come out with won't get shown for what it is
complete and utter rubbish

Now, Now children, I think we'll end this thread here shall we? I can respect the views of everyone on here and everyone is entitled to there own opinions. To be honest, out of everything that has been posted on here about Atlantis, I am extremely surprised that my little input has sparked something none of you have actually heard of yet. Maybe some more research is involved prehaps. Thank you all though for your suggestions, I am very grateful

I am extremely surprised that my little input has sparked something none of you have actually heard of yet

heres why no ones heard of it
www.google.co.uk...
because it doesnt exist

Originally posted by Cruizer
Telos- some come here not so much to prove themselves right but revel in attempting to prove you wrong. It's not a matter of saying "I respectfully cannot agree with you," it's a matter of perpetrating an ongoing, relentless agenda of derogatory dogma.

This is simply not so. An individual chimes into a discussion with a demonstrably false statement concerning a real, factual, researchable person in the historic past, placing him 300 years earlier than his actual existence, just to help prop up an otherwise completely unsustainable idea about an imaginary lost civilization.

Who in their right mind only "...cannot agree with..." a person that posts a lie as fact in order to prop up some flawed idea?

If there's an agenda here, I haven't seen it from any of these so-called "debunkers" you loathe. Pardon us for requiring real and not imaginary information. It appears to me that the agenda here is one of throw anything at the wall, and whatever sticks point to it and scream loudly "LOOK! It's ATLANTIS!!!"

Originally posted by CruizerInstead of feeling comfortable to freely exchange ideas and theories people such as yourself end up abandoning a thread because of web trolls' harangues. The fact about Atlantis is that NOBODY knows and your opinion is as good as anyone's even if I don't personally agree with it!

In my opinion, "free exchange" of ideas includes exchanging the idea that an individual poster has stated something that is, in fact, not the case, and/or has purposefully misstated a known and established fact in order to further his own fantasy.

If you don't like this, then perhaps you should go off somewhere and talk to yourself. Or join the "Unexplained Mysteries" forum where this sort of claptrap carries on in high form day in and day out without challenge.

Note the motto of the ATS board before you cry any further tears over people wishing to Deny Ignorance.

Harte

[edit on 10/26/2006 by Harte]

If you don't like this, then perhaps you should go off somewhere and talk to yourself. Or join the "Unexplained Mysteries" forum where this sort of claptrap carries on in high form day in and day out without challenge.

I can vouch for that for sure
there will be no challenge from me
heres my avatar from the UM forum

note what it says next to group



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Marduk]

The original question made think of something that I never could find.

When was created the timing system that we use today, with 24 hours divided in 60 minutes, divided in 60 seconds?

The oldest reference I have found is on "The Kings Mirror", where it is written:

I can, of course, answer according to what I have found in the writings of men who have treated the subject thoroughly, and it is generally believed that their words come very near the truth. I have already told you how many hours there are in a night and day and gave the number as twenty-four. I have indicated the length of each hour in stating that three hours pass while the sun moves across one division of the sky. Now there are some other little hours called ostensa, sixty of which make one of those that I mentioned earlier.

This was written around 1250, so at the time they already had 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes for each hour, but when did we started using them?

The origins of our current measurement system go back to the Sumerian civilization of approximately 2000 BCE. This is known as the Sumerian Sexagesimal System based on the number 60. 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour - and possibly a calendar with 360 (60x6) days in a year (with a few more days added on). Twelve also features prominently, with roughly 12 hours of day and 12 of night, and roughly 12 months in a year (especially in a 360 day year).
en.wikipedia.org...

this is the Babylonian version of time which was based on the older sumerian time measurement the sar
the sar dates from 3000bce
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
it is also this culture that gave us 360 degrees in a circle which the sumerians divided into ten minutes or arc each 360 x 10 = 3600
so they used the same math to measure area and time
the reason we measure time is because most of their measurements were given as the time it would take someone to cover a certain distance and then doubled for the return journey (reset to zero)
the distance of the sumerian mile was derived from the distance someone could walk and back again in an hour
average walking speed is still around 2 miles per hour today
incredible eh some things don't change
hehe

the sumerians used base 60 in most of their math
including recording the lengths that their kings ruled
this can be seen on the sumerian kings list
Ĝušur ruled 1200 years
Kullassina-bēl ruled 960 years
Nanĝišlišma ruled 670 years
En-tara-ana ruled 420 years
when converted back into base 10 you get
Ĝušur rulked 20 years
Kullassina-bēl ruled 16 years
Nanĝišlišma ruled 11 years
En-tara-ana ruled 7 years

later kings were recorded in base ten such as
Sargon ruled 56 years
it was on not knowing this error that Hebrew scribes based the lengths of lives for their patriarchs in the bible
this was because only the sumerians used a base 60 number system. everyone else used base ten and when the change from sumerian kingship to semitic kingship came with the rise of the akkadian empire no one thought to mention it in the records. So it seems at first to the uninitiated (you know who you are) that people in ancient times lived a very long time

and if you were wondering
its why we use the term ruled in the first place when discussing the length a regent has been on the throne
because to the people that originated kingship
time and distance were the same measurement



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Marduk]

Thanks Marduk, I knew the Sumerians used a 60 based numeric system, but I never thought that our time divisions were as old as that.

Originally posted by Marduk
the water erosion on the sphinx just proves it rained a lot at some point in its history this doesnt mean neccesarily mean that its evidence of any super advanced civilisation because the recarving destroyed any real conclusions that would have been left
i.e. the rock that the sphinx is carved from has always been where it is
so proving ithe back of it has been there for millenia isn't a real mystery

the piri reis map doesnt really show antartica ice free
only pseudo historians claim that it does. and considering that it was made by a turkish admiral who never really sailed much beyond turkey why would he need a map of that region anyway

I'm not sure that agree w/ you on these two, but I'd have to look into it further.

If the sphinx is rain eroded then it's been around a lot longer than the conventional view of history states.

The Piri Reis map was made up of older maps (a common practice), so the fact Piri Reis didn't sail much doesn't say much. If it shows Antartica at all, that's a big deal. Apparently the transcription on the antartic part of the map says that the night is very long there. It shows Greenland as two seperate islands which it is under the ice.

The wings and the sun symbol can be explained by Jung's theory that common symbols are spontaneously created by the human psyche everywhere. For example, many cultures use the snake (or a dragon) and a bird (or a pheonix) to represent the lower and higher aspects of human nature.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Cruizer
Telos- some come here not so much to prove themselves right but revel in attempting to prove you wrong. It's not a matter of saying "I respectfully cannot agree with you," it's a matter of perpetrating an ongoing, relentless agenda of derogatory dogma.

This is simply not so. An individual chimes into a discussion with a demonstrably false statement concerning a real, factual, researchable person in the historic past, placing him 300 years earlier than his actual existence, just to help prop up an otherwise completely unsustainable idea about an imaginary lost civilization.

Who in their right mind only "...cannot agree with..." a person that posts a lie as fact in order to prop up some flawed idea?

If there's an agenda here, I haven't seen it from any of these so-called "debunkers" you loathe. Pardon us for requiring real and not imaginary information. It appears to me that the agenda here is one of throw anything at the wall, and whatever sticks point to it and scream loudly "LOOK! It's ATLANTIS!!!"

Originally posted by CruizerInstead of feeling comfortable to freely exchange ideas and theories people such as yourself end up abandoning a thread because of web trolls' harangues. The fact about Atlantis is that NOBODY knows and your opinion is as good as anyone's even ...

In my opinion, "free exchange" of ideas includes exchanging the idea that an individual poster has stated something that is, in fact, not the case, and/or has purposefully misstated a known and established fact in order to further his own fantasy.

If you don't like this, then perhaps you should go off somewhere and talk to yourself. Or join the "Unexplained Mysteries" forum where this sort of claptrap carries on in high form day in and day out without challenge.


[edit on 10/26/2006 by Harte]

Easy guys easy ! Is not Academy of Science, is a board where everybody can express himself. There is no hoax, no dissinformation and no perpetration. Control your self and your mouth (fingers). Profanity is the language scratch of inarticulate !!!
I said I'm done with this thread, why do you keep bashing my name?
I was wrong about Sebosus? So what? Does this one make me a hoaxer?
Harte we've had few exchange of opinions in the past and I hope you've seen that I don't promote hoaxes and dissinformation. I don't thing that neither you or somebody else here has the right to tell me where to go and where to post. Who gives you the right and who named you God of this board and even more who are you to make assumptions like that about another member? I don't come here to read your bs about egypt or atlantis (the same broken tune melody that we all hear from Hawass who in my opinion one day is going to have to explain him self in front of all humankind for the bigest, most shameful and ugly disinformation and surppressing of the truth in all human history) coz I can read that from the orthodox science. Why always you and your friend jump like grasshoppers when is about egypt and atlantis and try to force your arguments over and over? Why don't you leave the other members to express themselfs and think out of the box? And talking about "agenda" should I think that someone with an agenda is not me but you?
I certainly don't say that coz I consider my self to civilized and with more culture to offend a person and call him with different epithets only because he/she thinks differenty. For example in this thread somebody mentioned Piri Reis map and right away your friend (by the way the same one who always jumpes more than you) said that is not true. In this instance what I know for is that some scholars say it doesn't depict QML lineshore but some others say yes. So is for the Oronteus Finaeus map or for the Mercators or Buache's map whose by the way shows not only Ross Sea but even landmases of Antarctica ice free which means that the sources used for that map are even older than the one used for Reis map... etc.. So even though I know something else I don't jump in his throat and I don't call him a hoaxer and tell him, leave from this place etc etc. I don't do it because I don't have that right and certainly I don't recognize that right to you or to somebody else but the admins and smods of this board. Or the other example, when is talked about lines of the Sfinks and according to the same "debunker" here is just a line nothing else. The funny thing is that the main stream egyptology clearly and openly admits that Egyptology is a science that is not object of the prove as it is for the exact sciences, therefore is free to use assuptions as facts or not to force any reasonable explaination as the result. So when somebody, a scientist comes foreword with the scientific prove ( you know very well that I'm refering to Schoch) that lines of the Sfinks are as the result of water erosion and this couldn't have hapend in the time thay date Sfinks but much earlier, egyptology goes nuts and tries to dissmis even though scientifically can't... I don't jump in your or his face and say, You guys are hoaxers, liars and have an agenda... would be silly and rude and most of all very uncivilized. Or when claimes like Sfinks is Khefren ( when the only reference for Khefren is a statue 14 inch in size) and when a expert in criminalistic and face construction scientifically proves that two faces have nothing in common and again egyptologist find more and more excusses to justify themselfs and especially their academic sits and reputation, I don't point my finger and say See you hoaxer, stop lying and filling peoples mind with that crap... etc, coz I don't have that right. I'm a member as other 70 thousands in here and if I have something to opposse, I just bring my materials and opinions.
Long story short (..), control your mouth (fingers) and respect other member and people you don't know nothing about. And especially stop assuming a role of your self as debunker or the seeker of the truth.

I'm really sorry for what I had to wright and i apologize to the staff of this board but you should have made this things clear. Is getting to much with people like this two I've mentioned above. Or make clear to everybody that this board has a group of debunkers who are imune from the ATS rules and by knowing this we'll all try to express ourselfs with restrictions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tiny edit (...)

[edit on 27-10-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Marduk
why was everyone in every ancient culture around the world using a winged disc to represent their chief solar deity
apparently none of these cultures on different continents were in contact with each other
yet they all take a disc shape put two legs on it and give it wings
why

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Marduk]

if I may..guess here

the winged disk is not a sun god but a god riding in a flying saucer which was seen around the world in the same era by differing people.

Originally posted by rizla
Marduk, you do a good job of debunking the many silly claims on this board. Why you bother, I don't know. I have question for you. In your opinion, are there any examples of credible cases that really do throw a major spanner in the conventional reading of ancient history? Off the top of my head, I can think of the water erosion on the sphinx, the Piri Reis map and the crystal skulls. What do you think of those?

The Piri Re'is map is only a problem insofar as it suggest the Portuguese explored the east coast of Argentina, as far down as Tierra Del Fuego, earlier then is generally thought.

People like Marduk and myself aren't actually out to debunk all alternative theories and to defend the orthodox view. Rather, we're sorting the wheat from the chaff. Once the rubbish and the fictional have been removed, we can then see what real anomalies remain

I was wrong about Sebosus? So what? Does this one make me a hoaxer?

no
but it does mean that nothing you say is credible because clearly the sources you use for your research are not credible
this means that in future noone should listen to a thing you say because its rubbish
much like your entire last post was rubbish
trying to defend yourself when you have already been proved fraudulent doesn't do you any favours. Slagging off other posters who have never been proved incorrect about anything is not clever either
you ahould have just said you were wrong and that you were sorry
as it is your rambling diatribe just makes you look like an idiot who doesn't know and can't handle the truth
btw Schoch is not an egyptologist and nobody except pseudoscientists give a rats ass about his claims for the sphinx
if you were actually up on what he said you would know that he has since claimed that he doesn't think the sphinx is that old
but hey
you believe what you want and leave the real research to people mentally equipped to handle it
ok

the winged disk is not a sun god but a god riding in a flying saucer which was seen around the world in the same era by differing people.

i knew someone would say that
so these ufo's had wings made of feathers did they ?

we can then see what real anomalies remain

thats exactly it
if you removed all the stuff from this board that didn't actually exist you'd be able to see what real mysteries there were and you wouldn't waste all your time trying to solve something that is irrelevant
that way we might actually get somewhere
i mean
is there actually an ancient history forum anywhere that actually does take this approach
i'd happily surrender my will and all my posessions to anyone who did run such a board



[edit on 27-10-2006 by Marduk]

Telos- I agree with you completely. I'd love to kick around ideas with someone such as yourself knowing we wouldn't agree 100% but would do so with civility and respect. Once we would begin, however, know that it would involve the unrelenting attacks of others here. They don't simply state their peace once, feel smug and move on. They lurk and pounce with surly remarks with every subsequent post your make regardless of whether you have even addressed them personally. They're compelled for some reason to argue even minor points that are irrelavent to the main topic. And that's the thing isn't it? Agruing. Why? They surely must realize by now that many people don't care what they think. This is minor topic. Where someone brings up a simple piece of folklore the horde descends to mock and degenerate an innocent subject into a yet another "I'm right and you're just stupid," scenario.

I've taken to scrolling past posts by those that are continually sarcastic and offensive. Cause it's not the taking of another side of a theory its the way people verbally express themselves that they aren't simply right but you are wrong. I know what you are talking about here Telos even though I've hit the "ignore" function so I don't have to read the seething hate that some project here. You know as well as I that some feed off of the ability to conduct their comments in an arguementative manner at every opportunity. There is a debate board heading on ATS and that is where people who wish to verbally fight should go.

The web troll is now everywhere and you know it. Every site we visit on any theme or topic has these people that seem compelled to tell you why you are wrong about virtually everything, not just once but in a continual unending harangue. It's the identical dogma though the screen names of the web trolls change from site to site. They're unable to be civil and are compelled to offer sarcasm, cynicsm and denegration even to minor thread comments in nearly EVERY post. And we're told this isn't a planned agenda to discredit and degrade others? And for what, so we can say "You're right oh great oogly boogly."

We know they're being wise guys. They know they're being wise guys. But they keep saying they're not, even though they continue to use the same modus operandi. A kid brings up a benign topic like the clocks on freakin Atlantis and people end up defending every sentence they write. There is something wrong when you can't have a lighthearted discussion without arguing.

I'm very curious why these dismissers of everyone and everything aren't at work in the Paranormal threads sneering at and making fun of those that believe in ghosts.

Telos- your last paragraph mirror my sentiments exactly.

They lurk and pounce with surly remarks with every subsequent post your make regardless of whether you have even addressed them personally.

That is hypocritical.


Its like this cruizer
the original post asked a yes no question
its been more than proved that the answer is a resounding no for two reasons
1) Plato didn't mention clocks
2) clocks weren't invented until much later in history

now if you want to carry on discussing the possibility of something that
1) didn't happen
2) couldn't have happened
then thats fine
but don't do it on a board whos motto is "deny ignorance"
because that just labels you as Ignorant
and Ignorant people aren't worth listening to
ok ?


~~~~~~~~~~
Tiny edit for clarity

[edit on 27-10-2006 by masqua]

Cruzier enjoy your staying here coz we can't change the way some people are. All we can do is just hit the ingore button and that's all. We are not mods or smods so we can't do mutch to "force" some rude shepeards to learn the basics rules of behavior and civilized maners of how to comunicate. I just hit that button my self now, especialy after I've read that a scientist, a guy with an Phd is being called pseudoscientist by a kid that most likely doesn't even have the highschool degree. So let it go. My self I did what I could, I've notified the admins and smods of this forum and let them deal with whoever things that this place is a geto or a streen instead of a respectful board.

By the way I've uploaded something in google which is pretty interesting. If you wish here is the link: Mystery Of The Sphinx

Take care

likewise if you two want to send little love notes to each other there is a personal message system you know
derailing this thread with your appreciation for each others scholarship isn't helping anyone


can I just add this was my favourite bit

and civilized maners of how to comunicate

[edit on 27-10-2006 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Cruizer
Telos- some come here not so much to prove themselves right but revel in attempting to prove you wrong. It's not a matter of saying "I respectfully cannot agree with you," it's a matter of perpetrating an ongoing, relentless agenda of derogatory dogma.

This is simply not so. An individual chimes into a discussion with a demonstrably false statement concerning a real, factual, researchable person in the historic past, placing him 300 years earlier than his actual existence, just to help prop up an otherwise completely unsustainable idea about an imaginary lost civilization.

Who in their right mind only "...cannot agree with..." a person that posts a lie as fact in order to prop up some flawed idea?

...I said I'm done with this thread, why do you keep bashing my name?
I was wrong about Sebosus? So what? Does this one make me a hoaxer?
Harte we've had few exchange of opinions in the past and I hope you've seen that I don't promote hoaxes and dissinformation. I don't thing that neither you or somebody else here has the right to tell me where to go and where to post. Who gives you the right and who named you God of this board

and even more who are you to make assumptions like that about another member? I don't come here to read your bs about egypt or atlantis (the same broken tune melody that we all hear from Hawass who in my opinion one day is going to have to explain him self in front of all humankind for the bigest, most shameful and ugly disinformation and surppressing of the truth in all human history) coz I can read that from the orthodox science. Why always you and your friend jump like grasshoppers when is about egypt and atlantis and try to force your arguments over and over? Why don't you leave the other members to express themselfs and think out of the box? And talking about "agenda" should I think that someone with an agenda is not me but you?

Telos,

Sorry that I didn't include the salutation in this post you so objected to. But if you look closely, you'll see I was responding to what Cruizer said, and not to you. I did not mean to call you a hoaxer or a liar or anything like that. Also, I do not agree with Marduk that you are completely non-credible. What I was doing was defending the principle of educated skepticism, especially in instances where false premises lead to faulty theories, such as the idea that Atlantis existed (faulty theory) based on the false premise that there were pre-Platonic references, or references that were even contemporary to Plato, to Atlantis' existence.

The way I see it, you were wrong and that's fine. This was pointed out and you didn't object, exactly the way one should behave. Yet note the silly claims made by Cruizer in response to a reasonable statement about a real person and what era he really lived in. By pointing out factual information, suddenly people who have long been interested enough in the subject of Atlantis to have actually researched most of the angles are now referred to as "revel(ing) in attempting to prove you wrong." We are expected to read blatantly wrong posts that are stated as facts and merely reply with a "I respectfully cannot agree with you" because apparently if we do more than simply "respectfully disagree," why, then we are "perpetrating an ongoing, relentless agenda of derogatory dogma."

I am extremely tired of pointing out factual information and having it called "forcing" my "argument" or "opinion" on readers or posters here and elsewhere. Actual factual arguments can be countered with other actual factual arguments, can they not? If you agree with this, then let's have some.

Originally posted by Telos
I certainly don't say that coz I consider my self to civilized and with more culture to offend a person and call him with different epithets only because he/she thinks different. For example in this thread somebody mentioned Piri Reis map and right away your friend (by the way the same one who always jumpes more than you) said that is not true. In this instance what I know for is that some scholars say it doesn't depict QML lineshore but some others say yes. So is for the Oronteus Finaeus map or for the Mercators or Buache's map whose by the way shows not only Ross Sea but even landmases of Antarctica ice free which means that the sources used for that map are even older than the one used for Reis map... etc..

Yes, Marduk is my friend, though we've never actually met. And yes, he is rather intemperate regarding some of the wilder claims made here and elsewhere. I won't apologize for him, his personality is different than mine. He is no doubt even more tired than I of refuting the same claims made over and over, day in and day out, month by month, year by year. He has a long history of looking into these things, but he started trying to help people understand the error of their thinking long before me. I read his posts and I see the future me, that is, if I have to keep restating the same truths over and over again for as long as he has. BTW, we both started out as wide-eyed naive believers in this sort of crap.

Also, if you want, I can link you to sites that will tell you exactly why your above statements about these maps are wrong, and why such statements were made in the first place, and who made them. I've provided these links before here at ATS and elsewhere. Might you search for them? There is an extremely informative thread here about the Piri Reis map in particular.

Originally posted by TelosSo when somebody, a scientist comes foreword with the scientific prove ( you know very well that I'm refering to Schoch) that lines of the Sfinks are as the result of water erosion and this couldn't have hapend in the time thay date Sfinks but much earlier, egyptology goes nuts and tries to dissmis even though scientifically can't... I don't jump in your or his face and say, You guys are hoaxers, liars and have an agenda... would be silly and rude and most of all very uncivilized. Or when claimes like Sfinks is Khefren ( when the only reference for Khefren is a statue 14 inch in size) and when a expert in criminalistic and face construction scientifically proves that two faces have nothing in common and again egyptologist find more and more excusses to justify themselfs and especially their academic sits and reputation...

The problem here is that Schoch has never "proven" anything like this. He hasn't even used the "rainfall" information to formulate his idea. Only as an aside that might support his theory. His sphinx theory actually involves only exposure to air, not water. Funny how nobody (but Schoch) ever mentions this very simple truth, isn't it? There's an article (with links) about what Schoch says and how he arrived at his conclusion on Tinwiki - maybe you can read it? See the little tiny link at the top of every ATS page.
Also, I agree with you about Kaphre. And? I mean, so what? I've said many times here that the provenance of the generally accepted theory on the Sphinx hangs by a thread. Any Egyptologist or anthropologist will tell you the same. But they will also tell you why they hold the current theory.

Originally posted by Telos
Long story short (..), control your mouth (fingers) and respect other member and people you don't know nothing about. And especially stop assuming a role of your self as debunker or the seeker of the truth.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't expect to be able to tell me what to do, Telos. You definitely don't want to go there.
And please, a debunker is a "seeker of truth." If you are unwilling to have your opinion analyzed, then why do you publicly display it?

Harte

I'm what now "intemperate" I had to look that up you know
how dare you call me names that I don't understand
who do you think you are
how dare you imply that I..................
oh right
see what you mean
fair comment then

Just would like to say thanks for answering my question. It was something I read long ago and its fairly obvious anyway with the time thing that Atlantis cannot be linked to clocks in anyway when time wasn't even able to be measured in the way it is today. But still I find it fascinating, and just because you punch "atlantis clocks" in to google doesn't mean that you won't be able to find what I originally tried to ask. Google isn't gospel anyway. Infact since typing my original question I discovered the same theory has been linked to Abraham Lincolns assasination with the akward silence at 20 past or twenty to the hour. Now I can safely say we can end the discussion here and prehaps start a new thread for those who want to deviate and digress to other topics on Atlantis.