Introduction to Atlantology

Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by Harte

 

Well hear you go Harte three connections based on Egypt to Atlantis. I hope you have your fork and knife; get ready to eat some words.

This is one of the first times Atlantis is ever mentioned, and wouldn't you know it says the first story ever told was originally voiced in Egypt.

In Plato's book, Timaeus, a character named Kritias tells an account of Atlantis that has been in his family for generations. According to the character, the story was originally told to his ancestor, Solon, by a priest during Solon's visit to Egypt.

Plato and Atlantis


Here is yet another reference...

It is not an easy question to resolve. Scientists naturally look askance at psychic information – if, that is, they are even aware of it. So, the authors observe, the readings were not used to guide archaeologic explorations over past decades. Consider, too: Turn back the clock beyond 4,000 B.C. and most scholars, especially those in Cayce’s day, believe it was a time of primitive cultures. The readings, however, give accounts of Atlanteans, described as a technologically advanced people, having migrated to Egypt – and other locales – over 12,000 years ago. Also, “the readings mention [human] ancestors as far back as 10 million years ago, and high civilizations 200,000 years ago.” Remains unearthed in recent years and carbon dated are adding more credence to the psychic revelations.

Atlantis - Edgar Cayce

And one final url, with the connections between Ireland, Egypt, and Atlantis and this one has to many quotes to put just on so please read the whole thing.
Egypt, Ireland, and Atlantis

Now Harte since I know you didn't bother to go to google and do the smart thing and look for something connecting the two before you bashed my post; I'm awaiting your apology. Otherwise I'm awaiting the same ignorant answers.

You have got to be kidding, right?

You think I haven't read Plato?

Look, here's what you claimed, in your own words:

Now I understand the Sahara could be the place where they were located due to the fact of Egytian scripts that mention an atlantian empire.

So now, for your so-called "Egyptian scripts," you offer a piece of Classical Greek literature, a dream sequence from a sleeping conman, and a website with some modern dude's opinion?

Apologize for what, showing how casually and carelessly you opt to post a lie?

I don't think so.

Now, kindly come up with your claimed "Egyptian scripts that mention an atlantian empire" and maybe you'll have something valid to whine about.

Otherwise, accept that you've been shown to be, at the very best, a person willing to completely mischaracterize what facts there are that are known about the ancient world in order to advance some internalized agenda you have for wanting to "belong" among ignoramuses that ignore what they choose in order to believe what they want, i.e. "Atlantologists."

Harte



[edit on 18-11-2008 by Byrd]

reply to post by merka


Which is why I suggest using "Atlantis" as a loose umbrella term for hypothetical pre-historic civilizations that were not on a stone-age level of development.

Why Atlantology? Why not Muology, or Lemuriology, or Lyonesseology, or Avalonology, or Shangri-Lalogy? If you are going to use a fictitious place name, one's no better than the rest.

cormac

Sorry no, if proven it would be a major world shaking discovery. To be blunt you don't take the time and effort to prove this because you know you cannot.

Do the proof scientifically and everyone gains, do what you are doing now and you just waste people's time.

Side stepping Sky? LOL. I'm talking about you providing a scientifically valid backup to a claim you made. I'm not making a scientific claim, I'm making a claim for knowledge. I think I've proved more than once to have knowledge in a large number of areas. I'll make you a deal. You go prove you can speak foreign languages without learinng them and you can give me a test.

Ah Sky you do realize that we aren't believers? I'm well aware that in the believers' world asking for proof of claims is considered rather rude. One doesn't do that. In the non-believers world you wouldn't put forth such a claim without already having the evidence.

Sorry to call you out Hanslune, but didn't the OP say we were going to suspend the evidence calling for a bit? Also I am interested in what you have to say about your knowledge and studying about Atlantis, are there any theories that you having regarding its history? e.g. any idea what the civilization might have tried to impart on future civilizations through the mathematical construction of the buildings we have found on the ocean floor?. The OP has definitely contributed his fair share in this manner, high time you did to. Put up or shut up, don't just keep refuting the OP's claims.

reply to post by Lokey13


Yes exactly ology should be used for a study or academic discipline . Sky has clearly stated that this is NOT a scientific study. Since you could only prove that an ancient advanced society existed by using science - its kinda of a dead end.

However it can also be used to describe an area of study which could or could not be factual. So in that sense the use of ology is correct but in my mind misleading.

One for Sky

[edit on 18/11/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Harte


If you would be able to post without calling people dimwit and liar, that would be nice.

Sorry to call you out Hanslune, but didn't the OP say we were going to suspend the evidence calling for a bit?

Yes I believe it did but unfortunately I the thread I started to discuss said claims and discuss this thread was shut down. Sky then graciously offered to allow questions. If Sky doesn't want my participation I'm always glad to depart upon his request.

Also I am interested in what you have to say about your knowledge and studying about Atlantis, are there any theories that you having regarding its history?

I've been interested in fringe for forty years, in learning about it I studied most aspects of fringe knowledge to include the grandmother of fringe archaeology, Atlantis.

e.g. any idea what the civilization might have tried to impart on future civilizations through the mathematical construction of the buildings we have found on the ocean floor?

Although I leave the door open for evidence for Atlantis being found, a position I took a long time ago. The probability of what Sky describes, a civilization more advanced than our, being found is very improbable. I've come to that conclusion based on my study of existing civilizations and the massive archaeological footprints they leave. There is no such evidence for Atlantis nor in the environmental data either.

The OP has definitely contributed his fair share in this manner, high time you did to. Put up or shut up, don't just keep refuting the OP's claims.

Sorry I'd rather just refute the OP claims - which have been done thousands of times before.......

Originally posted by Skyfloating
...
If you would be able to post without calling people dimwit and liar, that would be nice.

Agreed. Let's keep this friendly, or at least mature , Please.

reply to post by Jbird


Let me echo that too. Hey Harte remember the fate of old Marduk. If you are suffering from DFS. Take some time off and refresh that sharp brain of yours.

I am really having a hard time following this thread.

I wish we could continue to talk about Atlantis, or ideas on such.

Usually the disruptions are backdrops, but this thread is really suffering because of the activity of a couple.

I hope the mod warning is heeded so those of us who are attempting to contribute can do so.


Glad to know a few of you are reading the links and bringing some of your own into discussion!

Some things to ponder when considering Atlantology

-Why do the ice cores that go back 750,000 years show no unaccountable changes in pollution and pollen - something other civilizations DID and as we are well aware of today, now affect?

-Domestication of animals and plants. No domesticated plants pop up fully formed- they all come up slowly over thousands of years and in almost all cases we know who their primitive ancestor where. If there had been an Atlantis why are their not fully evolved domesticated plant species? The same for domesticate animals.

-DNA is showing the migration patterns and they don't involve unknown continents

-If you walk along a beach or just along a river or steam in most areas of the middle-east you come across ancient shards and bone. Civilizations have massive footprints. Why nothing from these civilizations - and from their precursors? Even just in the continental US one can find arrow heads - but nothing from these civilizations?

-How did these civilization come into being without using detectable tools and food storage technology?

-Why did these civilization not trade with or mine resources from other areas?

[edit on 18-11-2008 by lucid eyes]

Could an advanced (with our present level of technology or higher) civilization have escaped our notice? Yes

Particularly if it fit into the following parameters

1. Much older that "10,000 BC" the farther you go back the less distinct and precise the geological and other data becomes.

2. A human or other settlement that was very small, not more than 10-20,000 people. A civilization footprint increases by leaps and bounds as the number of people in it increases. If you can keep it very small it is easier to miss it.

3. No traveling or trading, if they are isolated and don't seek contact they then leave fewer artifacts and traces. People who do travel and trade leave lots of traces.

4. Complete destruction. The farther you go back the less accurate is science's detection of events. If you go back far enough sites can be subducted and completely destroyed. Human habitations and artifacts are rather difficult to destroy completely, for example look at Thera, a great deal survived an enormous explosion.

5. The colony used unknown technologies that left no trace - but this doesn't explain the traces that would have been left BEFORE they developed that technology.

6. Unknown source, ie this colony came from some unknown source other than human evolution. This is possibility but at present no evidence supports it.

Summary for hiding from man's search. "Atlantis" would need to be; very small, isolated, suffer complete destruction and be much, much farther back in time than is presently speculated on.

Good questions Hanslune...give me a day to respond.

Hi all

Over the last 100 years the technological progress has been pretty astounding.

A person born in 1900 may well wonder if they are on a different planet if the were suddenly wandering around today. Now with that in mind (a high rate of technical progress) it makes me wonder if somehow, recently (within the last few 100 years) TPTB have stumbled across some hidden repository of knowledge.

When I look at Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that appear to show current day tech (the hieroglyph with the supposed helicopter profile), it makes me wonder if we have learnt all this before in the past and TPTB have found a hidden repository of knowledge which has been put into use and claimed as original information.

I mean what are the chances of a hieroglyph looking like a helicopter made 1000’s of years ago?

What are the chances of them seeing a helicopter drawing it then us reinventing and building a flying machine that looks so similar?

Cheers

TA

Another point of speculation:

Say you were the head of Atlantology and could fund research into three areas that could find evidence for the existence of a unknown civilization.

Be precise on what would you would want to research.

Assumption: The main colony was destroyed and is probably not accessible with our present technology.

My own choices would be:

1. Martime archaeological survey of shipping "choke' points* looking for unaccounted for wrecks.

2. Relook at known ancient mining sites to determine if they had been used prior to currently accepted theories.

3. Re-look at shore and lake cores of those bodies of water known to have been stable for 100,000 years or more. Look closely for signs of pollution and pollen from domesticated plants, prior to their accepted appearance.

*places were shipping must go thru to get to x or y and also ones noted for bad weather and dangerous conditions, ie increasing the chance of shipwreck. Examples, straights of Malacca, Hormuz, Gibraltar, Oresund, Florida, Tsushima, etc. These are ones that were navigable 10's if not hundreds of thousands of years ago.

reply to post by plainmike



Thats very interesting. Whats to say that they did not pack and move onto the moon or within the earth to take a passive role for whatever reason and have been watching us ever since.

Maybe that is what UFO'S are. A past human civilization that has since hidden it'self from us.

TA

reply to post by Hanslune



Just to add to your summary Hanslune, they would have to be no older than approximately 200,000 to 250,000 years as that is as far back as we can currently trace Homo Sapiens. That would be in the middle of the Mindel-Riss interglacial period with two glacial periods separating that time from us.

cormac

reply to post by Harte


Funny how you only read one of them, the one you were familair with. Also nice to know that your also a liar because if you know Plato you would have aldreay stated that obvious connection. You didn't even post a reply on the other 2 entries. I'm through talking with a toddler.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Howdy Cormac

Yep, one of the older speculations is that an earlier "side shoot" (bad translation from French) evolved faster and a cousin of mankind arose faster than we or the Neanderthals did. Its somewhat plausiable but given the OP of world wide civilization of equal or greater technology as our own - collaspes on the lack of archaeological finds.

Example:

Neanderthals, we have skeletal material from around 400 individuals, ranging in age from 130,000-30,000 years, average age about 50,000.
We have tens of thousands of artifacts.....

Interestingly it would appear these Atlanteans didn't go in for archaeology, excavation leave a very clear mark - no one has ever detected earlier investigations. Nor did they trade with the Neanderthals - so I guess they weren't into trade or even anthropology or even, gasp, providing medical support to lesser beings - unless of course the Atlanteans never met Neanderthals....

So why can we detect early humans fairly easily but not these wide spread humans who lived AFTER them?

Puzzling eh?

Don't get me started on even earlier human finds either, LOL

Edited to reply to Cormac instead of Harte

[edit on 18/11/08 by Hanslune]