Remnants of Atlantis Discovered!?!?

They're completey open with their findings and invite others, specifically from the "mainstream", to investigate them.

So, I'd say the best thing to do is research the science and form your own opinion on the subject.

At that point, if the science checks out, it doesn't matter if Greg Little is a Christian, a Buddhist, a raving New Age lunatic, a little green man from Mars or the reincarnaion of Albert Einstein.

Originally posted by EthanT
They're completey open with their findings and invite others, specifically from the "mainstream", to investigate them.

Except, they've been "investigated" by people that know what they're doing. Little didn't like the outcome and literally slandered the investigators.

Originally posted by EthanT
So, I'd say the best thing to do is research the science and form your own opinion on the subject.

I've done so and, of course, it doesn't.

I've done so and, of course, it doesn't.
At that point, if the science checks out, it doesn't matter if Greg Little is a Christian, a Buddhist, a raving New Age lunatic, a little green man from Mars or the reincarnaion of Albert Einstein.


Little is a psychological therapist. His archaeologist is a Master's degree grad whose thesis was about Atlantis in the Caribbean. Donato (IIRC) is his name.

He's never done any archaeology other than this stupid moneygrubbing Atlantis search (conducted - of course - for A.R.E.)

Not only does the "science" not check out, there's no "science" there at all.

Harte

sorry, but thats BS.

There were a few main points that some "mainstream" folks made trying to claim Bimini was natural, like the slope of the beachrock and the lack of stacked rocks, etc.

These were all countered by Greg and his team with an excellent video footage (posted in another of my threads) showing it how these claims lacked substance and were, quite frankly, false.

Of course, the anchors they found at Bimini are the one point that really CAN exclude Bimini as part of Atlantis, because they date to approx. 5000 BC. Greg and his team readily acknowledge this point.

In addition, the main proponents calling Bimini natural have never even visited the site!!

As far as the new find, it is WAY to early to say there is nothing to it, other than, of course, a dislike for Greg Little and/or the idea of Atlantis, or any other idea outside the mainstream. But, that seems enough for many.

So Greg Little is claiming that this is proof of a bronze age civilisation which 10,000 years ago invaded the Mediterranean, defeated the Egyptians (thousands of years before they existed) but were then themsleves defeated by the Athenians (who were also a bronze age civilisation which then disappeared ony to redevelop thousands of years later and coincidently reach a similar stage of technology in Platos time)?

On what basis?

Doesn't that all sound a bit bizarre?

Even allowing for people in the Carribean to enter the bronze age thousands of years before anyone else (what evidence is there though?), why would they then invade the Mediterranean?

I fail to see how this can in any possible way be connected to Atlantis

Originally posted by Essan
So Greg Little is claiming that this is proof of a bronze age civilisation which 10,000 years ago invaded the Mediterranean, defeated the Egyptians (thousands of years before they existed) but were then themsleves defeated by the Athenians (who were also a bronze age civilisation which then disappeared ony to redevelop thousands of years later and coincidently reach a similar stage of technology in Platos time)?

On what basis?

Doesn't that all sound a bit bizarre?

Even allowing for people in the Carribean to enter the bronze age thousands of years before anyone else (what evidence is there though?), why would they then invade the Mediterranean?

I fail to see how this can in any possible way be connected to Atlantis

He's made no claims along these lines at all.

All that's been said is that the dates correspnd to a time when, as far as we know, there shouldn't have been anybody there and does happen to coincide with Cayce's dating of Atlantis. If you look at the original news article for this most recent find, Atlantis was never even mentioned. There not even 100% positive that it's manmade (let alone part of Atlantis), just that the evidence currently points in the direction that it is man made.

The only claim currently being made for the previous find of Bimini Road is that it shows a slighly older sea faring civilization existed in the area then mainstream thinking acknowledges. A connection to Atlantis, as the popular storyline goes, has mostly been excluded for Bimini Road. They hoped for a connection, but it's not there.

Yes, GL and folks at ARE believe Atlantis existed based on the Cayce readings, but they have made ZERO finds to date that make a direct connection or show any evidence confirming those readings. This is readily acknowledged by them.

Originally posted by EthanT

He's made no claims along these lines at all.

So he's not saying its anything to do with Atlantis at all then?

Can't have it both ways

reply to post by Essan


Dude! It was the Phoenicians who threatened Athens and it was the Carthaginians who had a port in the Caribbean. The Carthaginians of Northern Africa descended from a Phoenician colony.

The chief god of the Carthaginians is Baal-Hamon. He is depicted as a bearded man with a head-dress of feathers.



…and it wasn’t 10,000 BC. Atlantis was probably a story fabricated by the Phoenicians or Carthaginians to keep everybody out of their prized Atlantic cash cow.

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Essan

 

Dude! It was the Phoenicians who threatened Athens and it was the Carthaginians who had a port in the Caribbean. The Carthaginians of Northern Africa descended from a Phoenician colony.

The chief god of the Carthaginians is Baal-Hamon. He is depicted as a bearded man with a head-dress of feathers.



…and it wasn’t 10,000 BC. Atlantis was probably a story fabricated by the Phoenicians or Carthaginians to keep everybody out of their prized Atlantic cash cow.

Howdy Lostinspace - long time no read

okay I'll bite your evidence of a Phoenician port in the Caribbean is.....?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Essan

 

Dude! It was the Phoenicians who threatened Athens and it was the Carthaginians who had a port in the Caribbean. The Carthaginians of Northern Africa descended from a Phoenician colony.

The chief god of the Carthaginians is Baal-Hamon. He is depicted as a bearded man with a head-dress of feathers.



…and it wasn’t 10,000 BC. Atlantis was probably a story fabricated by the Phoenicians or Carthaginians to keep everybody out of their prized Atlantic cash cow.

Howdy Lostinspace - long time no read

okay I'll bite your evidence of a Phoenician port in the Caribbean is.....?

edit on 30/8/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Tanit- The Serpent Lady

Originally posted by lostinspace

Tanit- The Serpent Lady

Howdy LIS

Hmmm a bit thin in the particulars eh?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by lostinspace

Tanit- The Serpent Lady

Howdy LIS

Hmmm a bit thin in the particulars eh?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Read up on her and I'll get back to you later. This subject should be a different thread anyway.

Originally posted by lostinspace

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by lostinspace

Tanit- The Serpent Lady

Howdy LIS

Hmmm a bit thin in the particulars eh?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Read up on her and I'll get back to you later. This subject should be a different thread anyway.

You didn't provide anything to drink - more like a squirt from a spray bottle on a hill 1.2 km away. I'm well aware of that goddess - you claimed a port - do you have evidence of a port? To give you an idea what a foreign port would look like archaeologically wise; take a look that materials obtained at Arikamedu the Indo-Roman port in India.

There have bean plenty of underwater civilization ruins and i don't think this one is any different

Originally posted by EthanT
sorry, but thats BS.

There were a few main points that some "mainstream" folks made trying to claim Bimini was natural, like the slope of the beachrock and the lack of stacked rocks, etc.

These were all countered by Greg and his team with an excellent video footage (posted in another of my threads) showing it how these claims lacked substance and were, quite frankly, false.

Let's see.

Who has the greatest interest in this being an artificial construct?

Also, who has the advanced degree (and job experience) in Geology?

Please. Little is a psycho (therapist.)

You are choosing to believe him and his sponsor A.R.E. and doing so while flying directly into the very face of scientific fact.

It's okay, but it's also B.S.

Of course, the anchors they found at Bimini are the one point that really CAN exclude Bimini as part of Atlantis, because they date to approx. 5000 BC. Greg and his team readily acknowledge this point.

Certainly.
But what they don't acknowledge is that they aren't even anchors at all. They are stones with holes naturally carved into them by action of currents on embedded harder stones that were in the limestone when it formed.

You won't hear about this from Little. I doubt he has ever even heard of such a thing, although it is extremely commonplace.

In addition, the main proponents calling Bimini natural have never even visited the site!!

The point is that the site has been visited by severalo different teams of geologists, starting with Schinn (IIRC.)
They all came to the same conclusion.

Now, do you believe there is such a place as Mozambique?
You do?
Then you are a hypocrite, unless you've actually been there. This is what you're saying about your "main proponents calling Bimini natural. "

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

You are choosing to believe him and his sponsor A.R.E. and doing so while flying directly into the very face of scientific fact.

It's okay, but it's also B.S.

What is it you are accusing me of believing?

The ARE (and Little) have found ZERO evidence for Atlantis to date, so there are ZERO scientific claims coming from them to believe in. This is readily acknowledged by them.

I have a hunch that sea-faring civilization in the Atlantic region probably goes back further than we think. This is based on all the other underwater ruins that have been found (and acknowledged by the mainstream) and by the significant changes in past sea levels in the area, especially around the Caribbean. It's also based on the fact that every year civilization gets pushed further and further back.

As Little himself suggests, Atlantis may turn out to be nothing more than that and it's just a story that has been highly "mythologized" over the ages. I tend to agree. It would be far from the first time in history this has happened, with Troy being one of the prime examples.

That's what I "believe" - just for your clarification.

If it turns out the Cayce readings on Atlantis are correct, well, then, wow, is about all I can say. But, they are so, well, far afield that it's hard to fully "believe" in them.

Originally posted by Harte
Certainly.
But what they don't acknowledge is that they aren't even anchors at all. They are stones with holes naturally carved into them by action of currents on embedded harder stones that were in the limestone when it formed.

They are identical to anchors found (and acknowledged by the mainstream) in the Mediterranean around the same time. And, no, the holes (with rope grooves on them) are not naturally formed. By the way, they didn't have huge metal anchors back then. Rocks (with holes bored into them) are exactly what they used.

Originally posted by Harte

The point is that the site has been visited by severalo different teams of geologists, starting with Schinn (IIRC.)
They all came to the same conclusion.

Schinn, lol. His work was found to have errors and when confronted he admitted he did it "just for fun" and didn't put the "usual care" into his work at Bimini. Not to mention, he is one of the proponents I talked about above who talked about the beachrock slope and lack of stacked rocks, which has been shown to be false. The stacked rocks could still be naturally formed, but the fact that Schinn didn't even notice them, shows the lack of care and time he put into the site. anyhow, they are valid points when determining whether a structure made of beackrock is natural or not, but to date, the issue has not been resolved by ANYBODY in my opinion - there are still unanswered questions.

By the way, the only "earned" degree Schinn has has is in biology. So, its okay to take his word on this over Donato, when Donata actually has a degree he EARNED relevant to the work in question? Okay.

Quite frankly, I'm not overly impressed with either of these guys. I would like to get some noteworthy scientists at all these sites, so we can get some real data, and more opinions.

Originally posted by Harte
Now, do you believe there is such a place as Mozambique?
You do?
Then you are a hypocrite, unless you've actually been there. This is what you're saying about your "main proponents calling Bimini natural. "

Harte

Lol, come on, I'm talking about actually CONDUCTING science on site, not making stuff up. If someone is going to claim a beachrock formation is natural, I want to be sure they actually looked at it before I trust their word. Sorry, but that's just me.

So, are you trying to say archeologists, geologists, etc., shouldn't visit the site they are actually studying, lol?

They should conduct work at the LHC like that too. Instead of running experiments at CERN, physicists could just remotely claim the Higgs exists (or not) by pulling the statement out of their "arse". They could skip doing the the math too, while they're at it.

But, at the very least, they would have to be required to visit CERN only once, so they know for sure CERN at least exists before making any scientific conclusions.

I bet they could really save on the electricity bill this way - not ever having to actaully turn on the collider to do work.

Originally posted by EthanT

Originally posted by Harte

You are choosing to believe him and his sponsor A.R.E. and doing so while flying directly into the very face of scientific fact.

It's okay, but it's also B.S.

What is it you are accusing me of believing?

The ARE (and Little) have found ZERO evidence for Atlantis to date, so there are ZERO scientific claims coming from them to believe in. This is readily acknowledged by them.

You have bought into the A.R.E.'s stupid scam, that's what I'm accusing you of. Regardless of how careful this psychologist is being with the wordings of his claims.

They are identical to anchors found (and acknowledged by the mainstream) in the Mediterranean around the same time. And, no, the holes (with rope grooves on them) are not naturally formed. By the way, they didn't have huge metal anchors back then. Rocks (with holes bored into them) are exactly what they used.

Right. These:
.
Sure. These look like "bored-out" holes in stone. Until you put your glasses on.

You know, Bimini actually was (still is) a port, Have you ever looked into the use of stone anchors in the 18th and 19th century?

Originally posted by Harte
The point is that the site has been visited by several different teams of geologists, starting with Schinn (IIRC.)
They all came to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by EthanT
Schinn, lol. His work was found to have errors and when confronted he admitted he did it "just for fun" and didn't put the "usual care" into his work at Bimini. Not to mention, he is one of the proponents I talked about above who talked about the beachrock slope and lack of stacked rocks, which has been shown to be false. The stacked rocks could still be naturally formed, but the fact that Schinn didn't even notice them, shows the lack of care and time he put into the site. anyhow, they are valid points when determining whether a structure made of beackrock is natural or not, but to date, the issue has not been resolved by ANYBODY in my opinion - there are still unanswered questions.
By the way, the only "earned" degree Schinn has has is in biology. So, its okay to take his word on this over Donato, when Donata actually has a degree he EARNED relevant to the work in question? Okay.

Yes, I too have read what Little told you to think and believe about Schinn. The question in my mind is, why are you doing it?
The answer has to be because to want to believe it.
Regarding Little's ridiculous diatribe against Schinn, don't you find it at all unsettling that a psychologist putterering around and playing with geology would try to make some stupid claim about Schinn's degree, with Schinn an award-winning and lifelong geologist?
One of several:

Eugene A. Shinn, carbonate geologist with Shell Oil in the 1960s and then with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for 31 years, will receive the 2009 William H. Twenhofel Medal from the Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM). The highest recognition given by the SEPM, the Twenhofel Medal is awarded annually to a person for his or her outstanding contributions in sedimentary geology. Albert C. Hine, Associate Dean of Research at the University of South Florida (USF) College of Marine Science in St. Petersburg, made the announcement in August. Shinn received an honorary Ph.D. from USF in 1998 and was a commencement speaker. Since retiring in 2006 from the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center office in St. Petersburg, Shinn has been seated as a Courtesy Professor at the USF College of Marine Science next door.

I mean, how long and under whose tutelage has Little studied archaeology?

Have you looked into Donato's published work? I have. I've even read his masters thesis.

Believe what you want but Schinn had more knowledge of geology in his fingernail than Donato could ever hope to gain in his entire lifetime.
Regarding Schinn's unserious approach to Bimini, he was called by a friend of his (some publisher, IIRC) to investigate it, not by his bosses at the USGS (where he worked for a large part of his life, running the USGS office in Florida.)
He went on the weekend because he worked for a living.
The only reason he agreed to go was because the trip was paid for by the publisher and Schinn was fond of snorkeling.
Schinn's samples of the stone proved conclusively that they formed in the position in which we see them today. Schinn's dead now, has been for a pretty good while. His analysis still stands, though. That's why you don't get many geologists looking into this. The "question" (pretending there ever was one) was answered long ago.

However, why don't you ask Little howcome he and his pal don't look on dry land at Bimini? I know the answer.

Harte

Dude, I haven't bought into anything. Did you even read what I wrote? Or, do you just like to argue. There are zero scientific finds or claims from the ARE, or Little, on Atlantis to buy into. They freely admit they have found nothing. Do you get that? I guess not ...

In addition, NOBODY has full explained Bimini Road, certainly not some dude who went there on the weekend "for fun".

SO have fun grinding your teeth over this one ;-)

Originally posted by EthanT
In addition, NOBODY has full explained Bimini Road, certainly not some dude who went there on the weekend "for fun".

SO have fun grinding your teeth over this one ;-)

The fact is, this natural formation was explained decades ago.

Again, look into the archaeology that has taken place on Bimini.

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune

You didn't provide anything to drink - more like a squirt from a spray bottle on a hill 1.2 km away. I'm well aware of that goddess - you claimed a port - do you have evidence of a port? To give you an idea what a foreign port would look like archaeologically wise; take a look that materials obtained at Arikamedu the Indo-Roman port in India.

Nice comeback. You always keep your cool.

I guess the artifacts proving of a Carthaginian port are all underwater, buried under the sand. Also, whenever a Phoenician or Carthaginian object is found in the Americas archeologists cry foul and it is deemed a fake or hoax. So you are damned if you do find something and you are damned if you don’t.

Coins minted from Carthage were found in Waterbury, Connecticut. The language was Punic and the inscription read “OMMQNI”, which translate ‘in camp’. The coin also had an image of a horse head, which is a trademark of Carthage. The expert explanation is that the coins must have been lost, discarded or deliberately buried during colonial times and so do not constitute archaeological evidence of any kind.
So there you have it. The notion will never be accepted. (The world will always be flat.)

By the way, a religious site has been found on the Azores which was dedicated to the Carthaginian goddess Tanit. If the ships of Carthage could make it to the Azores, then they should have been able to reach the Americas.

So here’s your water to drink, with a horse head coin to boot, Hanslune.