Ancient World Maps showing Lemuria, Atlantis and more

Originally posted by Skyfloating
cormac....harte...essan...hanslune...merka...

...will we ever see you post in favour of alternative- or non-mainstream history posts?

Do not generalize the answer with "When I see evidence...".

Skyfloating,

I'm in agreement with Essan on this pre-Clovis thing and I believe I've said as much here recently in another thread.

Also, while I may not always phrase it as such, most of my posts here that dispute the so-called "alternative" ideas are merely statements of facts that stand in the way of the alternative idea being the correct one. That is, those of my posts that aren't made just to express my frustration at having to go back over some subject that has already been debunked 15 or 20 times here at ATS by Byrd, Nygdan or one of the other excellent thinkers at this website. Or myself. Or Marduk, or Essan, or, ... well, you get my point.

For example, if you look at the sphinx article I wrote that is posted on Tuinwiki, you'll see both sides of that story.

After all, aren't there enough folks here posting whatever latest pseudohistorical idea they've most recently seen without even bothering to check and see if the scenario they are espousing can even possibly be correct?

I think we provide an invaluable service to, if nothing else, the truth. People shouldn't expect to be able to claim whatever they want, regardless of whether it flies in the face of facts that are known and accepted, and not be challenged on it. Wouldn't you agree?

I like to use Graham Hancock as an example, as I've done several times before. In the 1960's when VonDaniken's "Chariots of the Gods?" came out, EVD tried to claim that the carving on the cover of the sarcophagus in Pacal's tomb was indicative of a man manipulating the controls of a space vehicle. You (and others) may or may not remember the side-by-side pics of Pacal doing his thing next to a pic from one of the early Nasa space capsules. Both men seemed to be lying on their backs manipulating "controls." EVD even went as far as to somehow discern a rocket exhaust coming from the bottom of Pacal's carving.

Illegitimate? Of course. But I can give EVD the benefit of the doubt (by that I mean I can believe that, while what he said was blatantly false, maybe he didn't know it was false) because Mayan glyphs had not been properly deciphered when he wrote "Chariots of the Gods?"

So, in the 1990's, in walks Graham Hancock with his "Fingerprints of the Gods." What does he do but basically repeat VonDaniken's silly claim. But, see, Mayan glyphs were completely and fully translated by the early 1980's. So Hancock either knew he was lying or he didn't bother to even look to find out the truth. I suspect that he knew he was lying, but even if the case was that he just didn't look, I will submit that he didn't look because if he had looked, he would have had to remove that part from that section of his book.

We know for certain, as certain as my username is Harte, that the carving depicts Pacal falling through the Mayan Tree of Life. This was known in EVD's day as well, but at least EVD could always say that he thought the glyphs in Pacal's tomb would someday show that Pacal was an astronaut or something.

Hancock, and his ilk, continue to this day to put false crap like this out there for gullible people with expendable income to snap up ("Fingerprints of the Gods" even includes the old and worn-out lies about what sort of plants were found in the bellies of frozen Mammoths).

These books and websites feed some people's need to feel "special," as if they are "in on" some big knowledge that few others are privileged to know. I understand the feeling, but I despise the purveyors of this claptrap and what their "product" takes away from the intellect and reason of today's society.

Not to mention the extremely cold blanket it throws on any real researcher that wants to maybe look into some of the more fringe areas of archaeology.

So, no, you'll likely not see me endorsing many of the views that are expressed in the "alternative- or non-mainstream history posts." It's nothing personal as far as the posters go, it's something between me and the lying conmen scumbags with whom these stupid, stupid claims originate.

Harte

Personally, I can't speak for the rest but when someone shows me something other than a half baked idea based on what they WANT TO BELIEVE then maybe I could be persuaded. But when someone PURPOSEFULLY IGNORES the known facts in favor of what's convenient to them, then it isn't going to happen.

I have never said cultures along ancient coastlines or islands never existed, surely they did. Tying them into MYTHICAL or MADE UP places is, however, wrong. To put it another way: If it looks like crap, smells like crap and you actually see it coming from the back end of a cow, IT ISN'T HAMBURGER!!!

reply to post by Skyfloating


But the thing is... you need evidence. I could claim that all of humanity is descended from a pair of sea trout that crawled onto the land of a lost continent off the coast of Argentina called Zubledogorm, and that those trout's descendants had flying saucers and floating pyramids. Would you nod excitedly and follow along?

Just because an idea isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's a good idea. In the land of science - of which history is a part - things are generally mainstream for a good reason, and even those things that aren't, draw on some data to support their claims

Originally posted by Harte
These books and websites feed some people's need to feel "special," as if they are "in on" some big knowledge that few others are privileged to know. I understand the feeling, but I despise the purveyors of this claptrap and what their "product" takes away from the intellect and reason of today's society.

Come on though Harte, perhaps these books and websites inspire people. Doesn't mean they have a need to feel 'special' necessarily. You understand it, when someone reads something which resonates with them they get excited by it - especially if they feel that what they are reading is truth which have been suppressed.

I dunno, i totally see your point but sometimes these fringe ideas concerning history and the like really could be the truth - how do we really know?

Who are we to say that just because it's accepted as 'fact' that it really isn't a manipulation of facts? I suppose that is always where I am coming from personally.


I can speak for myself in this regard that i like to dig around the so-called facts, and look beyond the history we are being told/sold.

If it appears as 'undisputed fact', shouldn't we, as thinkers, examine whether or not it should really be treated as such? I read and take in all the stuff you guys give me, and i agree - it is a service that you guys give in that it personally broadens my understanding, but i will generally read 'facts' and then try to dissect where the truth starts and where it ends....

In the same way the knowledge possessed by you guys helps people like myself to broaden my understanding, its hoped that some of these fringe 'facts' we present are taken seriously and make you guys take a second look at the official story.


Essan,

Avaiki being described as an 'underground place' doesn't really erase the possibility that it was sunken. If it meant, say, a mountainous region, then fair enough, it'd be incorrect. But underground and underwater aren't really that dissimilar IMO.

And yes, Moorea could mean 'yellow lizard' but that doesn’t at all change the fact that the word had its root in Mu, which was all I was trying to say with that one.

And motu meaning island, true, but where did this word derive? And can we trace the origins of this word? Almost all words change over time - I would suspect Mu-tu was an earlier incarnation.


Cormac,

It's NO fact that Atlantis or Mu are made up - that is merely an opinion which can't be confirmed. According to the 'facts', then yes they are fictional, but as I will always maintain, facts often turn out to be incorrect or part-truths. A fact is a fact until someone proves it wrong.

Will take a look at the link during my break.

srsen,

I would have to say there are very few undisputed facts and many things should be questioned. That's how we all learn. But it can quickly become ridiculous. Case in point: How do I know that you are an actual human being in Sydney, Australia and not a trout from Alpha Centauri that was genetically enhanced with the ability of speech by the Klingons? Ignoring any known facts, like so many fringe/alternative theory types do, I could speculate or theorize anything. I could conveniently accept anything you or anyone else says about you to be a lie to throw everyone off of the truth. Why not, I have read enough of the same type stuff since being at ATS. See where I am coming from?

reply to post by cormac mac airt


totally get what you're saying and understand how there are so many stories which circulate on the net which are indeed just that - someone saying something and then finding facts to fit in with their theory. Its bunk, and believe me, i leave that stuff alone. But past civilizations just makes too much sense to me.

Atlantis and Lemuria have way more evidence than simply Plato and the likes.

So many cultures refer to them, so many people claim to have origins in a lost land in the West, so many people have had visions and past life recollections, there is land which has undoubtedly sunk which was once above land, there are artifacts which simply dont make sense, there's the Veda's and other texts which support the theory of past civilizations.

Exaclty what was burnt at the Alexandian library and others and why was it burnt? Why is there so many holes in official history and things that dont make sense.

Why is it that someone like, lets say Michael Tsarion, can research for thirty years and only grow more convinced of the fact and uncover more evidence that so much of Europe's history has its roots in Atlantis?

I mean there is just SO MUCH stuff out there that i simply cannot buy that its all made up and a coincidence that it all fits in together.

I see where you, and everyone else here, is coming from, (and i love the back and forth - most the time) but i mean WHAT IF Atlantis and Lemuria turn out to be true - i mean the weight such a disclosure would have would change the world as we know it. History would be re-written, certain religions would break down, parties would be exposed for their lies, and the world would never be the same.

I'm just saying that i feel there are PLENTY of reasons for both this to be covered up and the truth.

I believe in the possibility of a Pacific landbridge/large island/subcontinent that is now submerged as there is enough evidence to indicate same. Vast amounts of land would have been above surface with the lowering of the oceans by around 400 feet. Equating this with the names Lemuria or Mu is where I personally draw the line. No one knows what this area might have been called 10,000+ years ago as, genetically, the majority of the natives were not there at that time. Asking their descendants would be pointless.

Atlantis is a different story. There is no geological indication of a continent the size of Atlantis, around 80,000 square miles, anywhere just outside the Straits of Gibraltar. Similarities with names from other cultures doesn't mean they were the same thing. Doesn't mean there weren't any unknown/little known cultures in existance, just that we don't know enough to know what they were called.

Personally don't go for people like Tsarion, Sitchin, Von Daniken, Berlitz, etc., as the biggest, most recent stumbling block for them is that genetics and genetic migration DOES NOT bear them out.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by cormac mac airt]

I can remember when i started studying ancient maps in university. My room mate would laugh at me as he hurried off to class saying :


"dude arts 1000, stop looking at ancient maps or you'll miss the bus"
he would leave goto class and return
"dude my god stop with the #ing maps"
he would graduate, and i wouldn't, and now i find myself looking at ancient maps...

Originally posted by srsen
Atlantis and Lemuria have way more evidence than simply Plato and the likes.

So many cultures refer to them, so many people claim to have origins in a lost land in the West, so many people have had visions and past life recollections, there is land which has undoubtedly sunk which was once above land, there are artifacts which simply dont make sense, there's the Veda's and other texts which support the theory of past civilizations.

Which cultures exactly? Can you provide references? Which artifacts are you talking about?

I have personally learned to distrust this "past life recollections" because everyone is Joan of Arc, Henry the Eighth, Cleopatra, whoever, and nobody is ever Otto Klemph, Bavarian bartender who died of bowel blockage in 1609. Nobody's ever recalled former lives of being an Australian aborigine drinking a mouthful of frogwater, for that matter. It's always someone important and famous or unique and wonderful.

As for the Vedas, there are bad translations of them made by people who want to make a buck off the "secret wisdom of Eastern mystics." Another poster has posted some actual transcripts of the Vedas in question in another htread, I'm afraid I lack links at the moment.

Exaclty what was burnt at the Alexandian library and others and why was it burnt? Why is there so many holes in official history and things that dont make sense.

The first question is a good one. We may never know. Maybe we lost an amazing amount of knowledge. Maybe we didn't. After all, the Library was hardly secret, and had a lot of people coming in and out, making copies, taking notes, probably stealing a lot of the scrolls and records.

It's highly likely that the majority of the library was government documentation - tax records, palace expenses, legal declarations by the Pharaoh, wars and armistices and truces and with whom, trade agreements, that sort of thing. All that papyrus is bulky stuff, and nobody wants it cluttering up their palace, right?

The second question is pretty easy - As a distraction in time of war, a move to demoralize the enemy, and a method by which to undermine the strength of the government even if the war was lost by those setting torches - All those government records were kept for a reason, after all.

What holes, in particular, are you referencing?

Why is it that someone like, lets say Michael Tsarion, can research for thirty years and only grow more convinced of the fact and uncover more evidence that so much of Europe's history has its roots in Atlantis?

Because, something you'll notice two fairly constant thingswith non-mainstream archeology and history.

First, money talks. None of these guys have peer-reviewed material, but all of them have very solid contracts to crank out paperbacks. They always ask for more funding, and never seem to do much with what they get.

Second, Whi - er, Europeans are the descendants of gods, and are favored and special. Every ancient civilization, no matter where it is from, is the result of whi - I mean European influence. Only whi-, um, European people can claim a direct lineage from spacechip-traveling favored children of our alien overlords, and all those bro- damn it, people from anywhere else are "degenerations" or "usurpers." The Mayans are not smart enough to stack rocks into a pyramid, they're br- not European! How couldthe Chinese have possibly developed advanced navigation techniques without whit- Europeans giving it to them first?
Of course, given how "conventional" history doesn't back this approach, we have to assume that there was an Atlantis, and that Europe was just the best of Atlantis' survivors.

It has a very Ron E. Howard feel to it, huh?

I mean there is just SO MUCH stuff out there that i simply cannot buy that its all made up and a coincidence that it all fits in together.

Like for example?

I see where you, and everyone else here, is coming from, (and i love the back and forth - most the time) but i mean WHAT IF Atlantis and Lemuria turn out to be true - i mean the weight such a disclosure would have would change the world as we know it. History would be re-written, certain religions would break down, parties would be exposed for their lies, and the world would never be the same.

Well, as has been noted Earlier, "Lemuria" as a notion created by a biologist to explain the presence of primitive primates in Madagascar, East Africa, and south Asia. This was prior to plate tectonics being discovered, and the idea was thoroughly scrapped when this idea explained it easily - and when the Indian ocean was mapped and explored and no such huge island was found.

You may be getting it mixed up with Mu, different myth.

If they turned out to be true - and despite a lot of people looking for a long time, no evidence of such has come to light - then yes, history would be reconsidered as we learned more. That's a given, and hardly that revolutionary. Can't imagine what religions would care much. And who would be lying? As far as anyone knows, there are no such places. That's not a lie.

I'm just saying that i feel there are PLENTY of reasons for both this to be covered up and the truth.

What reasons would that be? Do you know how many people's careers would be made for life if they came up with even a shred of certain proof for Atlantis?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
cormac....harte...essan...hanslune...merka...

...will we ever see you post in favour of alternative- or non-mainstream history posts?

Do not generalize the answer with "When I see evidence...".

Define in favor?

I recently posted that Atlantis may have been in reference to mighty Carthage and their defeat by the Greeks in the Sicilian wars a hundred years before Plato, for example. Isnt that alternative?

Anyway, most "alternative" and "non-maintstream" history posted is usually one of these options:
A) Regurgitation of old and flawed theories (and often debunked a hundred times before, yet they still keep coming)
B) Absolutely ridiculous claims with nothing to back it up
C) "What if" scenarios eqvivalent of pure fiction

Its difficult to post in "favor" of such rubbish, other than to entertain the idea for your own amusement. Then again the forum would be quite dull without it.

Primer on alternative-history, para-history, atlantology and ancient astronaut theory


Seeing all the replies here from Harte and Co. and also being a reader of the Forum since 2003, I would like to state that it is not right to see this discussion as a "evidence vs. no-evidence" discussion as the mainstreamers keep putting it.

Instead it is a battle of interpretation. In this sense, the alternative/conspiracy view of history is often more scientific and up-to-date than many think.

One example (and one example only, as I dont want to spend another few years explaining the obvious):

An ancient scribe writes of someone having ascended to heaven, spending some time there and then returning to earth.

One mainstream interpretation of this text would be that it refers to a "religious vision" and "should be interpreted religiously".

I deny the theological interpretation and instead say: "Well, someone flew up and then came back down".

In short, the alternative/conspiracy-historian says that history has been twisted, coloured, manipulated, fabricated, changed by religion.

Strip ancient texts from religious mumbo-jumbo and you get a pretty clear picture of what really happened:

Extraterrestrials had sex with humans although it was forbidden by higher rank ETs. They then decided to wipe out the earth (Atlantis) with a huge flood and give humankind a re-start and chance to re-build for a few thousand years without the interference of ETs. No big deal and no need for bizzare religious interpretations.

I deny the theological interpretation and instead say: "Well, someone flew up and then came back down".

That is the whole point. It DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DENY, you weren't the one writing about the events or living them. Without strong evidence to the contrary, their writings should be interpreted based on what we know of THEIR beliefs, THEIR knowledge, NOT OURS. Unless we can prove them wrong, they are the best ones to know their history. Extraterrestrials are no more proven then an ancient cultures religious belief. People who believe that extraterrestrials were our ancestors/progenitors are basically saying we humans are a worthless race who CANNOT do anything worthwhile under our own initiative. Ancient peoples religious beliefs were alot stronger back then than they are for most people today.

Originally posted by srsen

Originally posted by Harte
These books and websites feed some people's need to feel "special," as if they are "in on" some big knowledge that few others are privileged to know. I understand the feeling, but I despise the purveyors of this claptrap and what their "product" takes away from the intellect and reason of today's society.

Come on though Harte, perhaps these books and websites inspire people. Doesn't mean they have a need to feel 'special' necessarily. You understand it, when someone reads something which resonates with them they get excited by it - especially if they feel that what they are reading is truth which have been suppressed.

Yes, perhaps I overgeneralized. But you do know what I mean.

And, hey, I used to be one of those people that got excited about the subject - not that I suspected some ubercoverup, but just perhaps not enough people looking in the right places.

Then I spent several years trying to get both sides of every story. Came to find out that one side was actually lying and the other was not. Leave it to you to figure out which side was lying and why.

Originally posted by srsenI dunno, i totally see your point but sometimes these fringe ideas concerning history and the like really could be the truth - how do we really know?

We can't possible know down to every detail. But we can certainly know when we are looking at frauds and hoaxes, though they can fool you too. We can know when some author is trying to sell a book and misleading people in the manner I wrote of concerning Hancock, can't we? Did you read what I wrote there? Do you know what I meant by the plants found in frozen mammoths' bellies? Do you remember the carving on Pacal's tomb? Google these things.

Thats only two examples of lies that Hancock has either told or allowed to flourish. And that's only one writer.

Originally posted by srsenWho are we to say that just because it's accepted as 'fact' that it really isn't a manipulation of facts? I suppose that is always where I am coming from personally.

To suppose that what has been discovered over the last two hundred years or so is not real, consider the scope of such a conspiracy. Consider the money to be made by people that don't "go along to get along." Do you realize the fame and fortune that would come to any real researcher that uncovered an ancient unknown and perhaps advanced civilization?

Originally posted by srsenIf it appears as 'undisputed fact', shouldn't we, as thinkers, examine whether or not it should really be treated as such? I read and take in all the stuff you guys give me, and i agree - it is a service that you guys give in that it personally broadens my understanding, but i will generally read 'facts' and then try to dissect where the truth starts and where it ends....

I agree wholeheartedly. If you actually do this, and I mean take a hard and close look at both sides of these fringe areas, you'll arrive at my point of view quite soon. That's exactly why I do what I do here.

Originally posted by srsenIn the same way the knowledge possessed by you guys helps people like myself to broaden my understanding, its hoped that some of these fringe 'facts' we present are taken seriously and make you guys take a second look at the official story.

The times that something comes up here (and at other boards where I post) that I haven't already heard of and have myself debunked (to my own satisfaction, anyway) are very few and very far between. But I keep reading here in hopes that something new might turn up. That's how pitiful it is to be hooked on these ideas, isn't it?

Harte

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

That is the whole point. It DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DENY, you weren't the one writing about the events or living them. Without strong evidence to the contrary, their writings should be interpreted based on what we know of THEIR beliefs, THEIR knowledge, NOT OURS.

Hold it right there. This is important: The theologists interpreting them werent the ones writing about the events or living them either. They are interpreting them while wearing religious glasses. Of course technical descriptions such as ascensions of vehicles to the sky does not make sense for translators and scholars from the 16th Century...but it makes perfect sense to us today.

This is so important and yet it is casually dismissed, missed and ignored by the entire mainstream. Not much can make me angry, but this does. First religion mis-interprets events so that later science can say religion is hogwash.

Unless we can prove them wrong, they are the best ones to know their history.

Precisely. Not theology which interprets them thousands of years later.

People who believe that extraterrestrials were our ancestors/progenitors are basically saying we humans are a worthless race who CANNOT do anything worthwhile under our own initiative.

Not all all.

Again, before talking "evidence" we first need to talk interpretation.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

I first got interested as a teenager in the 'ancient astronauts' idea promoted by the likes of Von Daniken.

Over the years my interest waned as more pressing priorities took over.

Some years back though I came across Graham Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods' and my interest was reawakened. For a while in the late 1990s I did think that the idea Atlantis was in Antarctica and the an Earth Crust Displacement had occurred was a viable theory.

But then I made the mistake of delving deeper. And found that much of the evidence was flawed, inaccurate or even made up. Okay, it's possible thousands of scientists over many decades have made up evidence to cover up the ECD theory etc, but common sense and logic dictates this is highly unlikely I've expanded my studies into climatology (and paleoclimatology) and other aspects of geology beyond what I learnt at school. I've read an awful lot of books. And I've also read most of the books written by those who propose alternative ideas.

What I find is that sometimes conventional theories explain 90% of the evidence. Alternative theories come along which try to explain the missingr 10% - but they ignore the other 90% !

I'm looking for the theory that explains 99%

I think the best starting point is the one that already explains 90%. Not the one that only tries to explain the other 10%

Hold it right there. This is important: The theologists interpreting them werent the ones writing about the events or living them either. They are interpreting them while wearing religious glasses. Of course technical descriptions such as ascensions of vehicles to the sky does not make sense for translators and scholars from the 16th Century...but it makes perfect sense to us today.

Your whole assumption is based on the idea that ONLY theologists were responsible for interpreting events or writings of another culture. What about the Rosetta Stone, Cuneiform writing, Hieroglyphics, Ogham writing, Sanskrit writing, Linear A and Linear B. Are you going to tell me that they were only interpreted by theologists too? I don't think so!

I could agree that 16th century translators might not understand technical descriptions. However, to assume that you know for a fact what the ancients were talking about over what archaeologists, paleontologists, linguists and others in the various fields have said seems to me to be self serving. Science may not have all the answers, yet, but that doesn't make you right. Just because they might sound like technical descriptions to you doesn't mean that they are. Where is evidence of an actual Vimana, a floating temple, etcetera?

First religion mis-interprets events so that later science can say religion is hogwash.

Pretty much what you are saying too, isn't it. That religion is hogwash and YOU know what the ancients were talking about.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Your whole assumption is based on the idea that ONLY theologists were responsible for interpreting events or writings of another culture. What about the Rosetta Stone, Cuneiform writing, Hieroglyphics, Ogham writing, Sanskrit writing, Linear A and Linear B. Are you going to tell me that they were only interpreted by theologists too? I don't think so!

Up until around the 17th Century religion was "science" and the pre-dominant means of interpretation.

Later came the science as we know it today. Everything that contradicts the view of the world having been primitive stone-age pre 6000 years ago (that date keeps getting pushed back, doesnt it) is viewed as "religious" or "allegory" or "religious vision" or "fantasy".

For the sake of endless debate you can deny this...or you can simply admit that up until recent times religion was the status quo of knowledge.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Essan

Okay, it's possible thousands of scientists over many decades have made up evidence to cover up the ECD theory etc, but common sense and logic dictates this is highly unlikely

Just for the sake of staying on topic of this very important point referring to interpretation: I didnt say scientists "made things up in order to cover-up", I said that religion has mis-interpreted events.

Up until around the 17th Century religion was "science" and the pre-dominant means of interpretation.

Yes, but even those interpretations have been gone over many, many times and necessary areas kept or discarded as we gather more information. We don't, as far as I know, base our information on what was believed 400 years ago.

Later came the science as we know it today. Everything that contradicts the view of the world having been primitive stone-age pre 6000 years ago (that date keeps getting pushed back, doesnt it) is viewed as "religious" or "allegory" or "religious vision" or "fantasy".

Yes the dating has and always will be pushed back as long as we keep looking and finding evidence to back it up. Show me definitive evidence of something older than the following and which is significantly more advanced than the stone age and I might agree with you.

Pulli Settlement, Sindi, Estonia
Göbekli Tepe, Turkey
Jericho - Pre-Pottery Neolithic A
Çatal Hüyük, Turkey
Çayönü
Mehrgarh, Pakistan
Yeşilova Höyük, Turkey
Vinca Culture, Serbia
Sesklo, Greece

For the sake of endless debate you can deny this...or you can simply admit that up until recent times religion was the status quo of knowledge.

Again, we live in the here and now. Not 400 years ago.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by cormac mac airt]

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

Again, we live in the here and now. Not 400 years ago.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by cormac mac airt]

I am saying that when science says "ascension" and "flying gods" is to be
interpreted "in a religious sense" then they are taking over theological interpretations.

Despite several replies here, this statement still stands un-refuted.