Atlantis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

What one cannot explain; one dismisses...

---

I quite agree. Even scientists can be insular and narrow-minded.

Still, I'd rather dismiss it that attribute it to a superrace that lived in a country that disappeared without a trace. The evidence for Atlantis existence is indirect and scattered, mostly based on the assumption that there was no way ancient people could be that sophisticated without outside help. Isn't it just simpler to assume that ancient people were just as clever as we are?

Gah! I've ran out of arguments! I concede the field to Pericles.
:surrender:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I quite agree. Even scientists can be insular and narrow-minded.

Still, I'd rather dismiss it that attribute it to a superrace that lived in a country that disappeared without a trace. The evidence for Atlantis existence is indirect and scattered, mostly based on the assumption that there was no way ancient people could be that sophisticated without outside help. Isn't it just simpler to assume that ancient people were just as clever as we are?

Gah! I've ran out of arguments! I concede the field to Pericles.
:surrender:

---

Hi.

I'm not trying to win any debate here - heheh

I value your ideas and input.

I just find the topic to be very interesting.

I agree with you: I do not believe that aliens came to earth in the past and gave knowledge to mankind.

I also agree with you that I believe, based on the evidence, that mankind was more sophisticated and knowledgeable than orthodox science presently claims it to be.

One has only to study the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza to see that we, today, would be hard-pressed to build a structure with the same degree of perfection, symetry, and complexity.

Cheers!

The Piri map is a very good accomplishment, Im afraid there are not so many mysteries about it and especially no mysteries involving land that in no way could have been known and charted and so on.

Here is a solid walthrough to the Piri map.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

Im gonna quote his last sentence:

Quote:

---

There's a class of crank that hates the idea that other people might have real accomplishments, because they never accomplish anything themselves. So Shakespeare didn't write his plays, other people did; Robert Peary didn't reach the North Pole as he claimed, and so on. And Piri Reis wasn't a gifted admiral and good intelligence analyst, but had to get help from ancient lost documents. Get a life, folks.

---

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

The Piri map is a very good accomplishment, Im afraid there are not so many mysteries about it and especially no mysteries involving land that in no way could have been known and charted and so on.

Here is a solid walthrough to the Piri map.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

Im gonna quote his last sentence:



Kalle

---

heheh

So you find one website that seeks to refute the Piri Reis Map, and then declare the issue solved.

No wonder orthodox science, history and archaeology have nothing to fear...

You list one website that tries to debunk the map; I could list dozens that support it:

http://www.btinternet.com/~meirionhughes/Pub/page2.htm

http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/eng...afet/afet0.htm

http://turkeyinmaps.com/piri.html

http://www.muslimheritage.com/day_li...=240&Oldpage=2

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/eng...s/piri_r~1.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/index.htm

********

Here are a few main points:

The Piri Reis Map has been independently verified to be authentic by many Turkish and US scholars. Not only does it reside in Turkey but copies of the map also reside in the Library of Congress in Washington.

I note the owner of that website is a professor. I guess he knows more that dozens of other scholars who have studied the map for the past 75 years.


While one may try to dismiss the Piri Reis map, there are many other maps that, drawn independently and at different times, depict the same things as on the Reis's map. These simply cannot be explained away as fabrications:

* There is the "Dulcert's Portolano", year 1339, where the latitude of Europe and North Africa is perfect, and the longitudinal coordinates of the Mediterranean and of the Black sea are approximated half a degree.

* An even more amazing chart is the "Zeno's chart", year 1380. It shows a big area in the north, going up till the Greenland. "It's impossible" says Hapgood "that someone in the fourteenth century could have found the exact latitudes of these places, not to mention the precision of the longitudes..."

* Another amazing chart is the one drawn by the Turkish Hadji Ahmed, year 1559, in which he shows a land stripe, about 1600 Km. wide, that joins Alaska and Siberia. Such a natural bridge has been covered by water due to the end of the glacial period, which increased the sea level.

* Oronteus Fineus was another one who drew a map of incredible precision. He too represented the Antarctic with no ice-cap, year 1532.

* There are maps showing Greenland as two separated islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

I agree.

Despite all the theories and the claims by Egyptologists, we still don't really know who built the Great Pyramid and when it was built.

It has also since been proven that the Sphinx shows signs of having suffered from heavy rain and flood damage. The entire US Geological Society has agreed to this interpretation of the weather damage on the Sphinx.

The problem is that it has not rained in Egypt that heavily for thousands of years; meaning that the Sphinx was built before the Egyptians...

Of course, some orthodox Egyptologists absolutely refuse to entertain such thoughts, since protecting their jobs is more important than advancing our knowledge about our past....

---

The Sphinx is more than just geology...

Take a look at it's head, it is far far too small for a sphinx. Sphinxes have heads in the proportionally correct size (not as in animal to animal though). And the head has hardly suffered from the elements compared to the body. Though it is harder than the body I have heard that this is downright silly to use as an explaination. You can still see small lines in the headdress of the head. They should have been gone if the head and body had deteriorated at even half to full speed compared to each other.

The Egyptians clearly tried to fix the Sphinx, and it seems that we know when. That doesn't fit with the construction date we normally get, if the Sphinx deteriorated that fast we would not have a Sphinx today at all.

But one thing that could possibly have been like water is that the Sphinx was buried in sand up to the neck. And we know that sand can act like water, thus the furrows on the Sphinx body could have been caused by the body. But I would prefer to see a geologist comment on that as I have only myself formulated it.

It is also known that there are some cubic rooms/caveties beneath the paws of the Sphinx, but all attempts at getting rights for excavation, or even just a look with a small probe has been rebuffed. I smell Zahir Hawass' hands in that matter.

The website I gave is not en enemy to the map or Piri Reis. It gives credit to the map and its creator where credit is due. Exactly as at least one of your own links does while others of your links are just conspiracylinks.

It is you who are making the accomplishment of Piri, the accomplishment of egyptians and others look bad by incorporating all these mystical magic things into it that simply is not there, as if the accomplishment of Piri and the Egyptians aint great enough on its own, not an achievement unless you add these mystical powers to it.

I have no time to debate these people who think there is a orthodox science who want to either stop research or keep some things as secrets. I did it before and there simply is no point.

Anyways have fun speculating and making things up, I enjoy readin it to, just dont portray things that are not true as true.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

* There are maps showing Greenland as two separated islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.

---

Pericles, I must take exception to this part of your post. Those goofy French! Greenland is not two islands. Maybe they were just lost, eh? After all, they were on a "polar" expedition. A little off course to be in exploring Greenland, I'd say. Here's a map of Greenland. The ice cap is in white. The local ice caps and domes are in green. The ice-free areas in grey. Note that the glaciers run all the way to the sea in only a few places. The shoreline, non-glacial shoreline to be more specific, is clearly shown all the way around the island! Nice try. Sorry, guy. Greenland is one contiguous land mass. Try not to be so credulous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The Sphinx is more than just geology...

Take a look at it's head, it is far far too small for a sphinx. Sphinxes have heads in the proportionally correct size (not as in animal to animal though). And the head has hardly suffered from the elements compared to the body. Though it is harder than the body I have heard that this is downright silly to use as an explaination. You can still see small lines in the headdress of the head. They should have been gone if the head and body had deteriorated at even half to full speed compared to each other.

The Egyptians clearly tried to fix the Sphinx, and it seems that we know when. That doesn't fit with the construction date we normally get, if the Sphinx deteriorated that fast we would not have a Sphinx today at all.

But one thing that could possibly have been like water is that the Sphinx was buried in sand up to the neck. And we know that sand can act like water, thus the furrows on the Sphinx body could have been caused by the body. But I would prefer to see a geologist comment on that as I have only myself formulated it.

It is also known that there are some cubic rooms/caveties beneath the paws of the Sphinx, but all attempts at getting rights for excavation, or even just a look with a small probe has been rebuffed. I smell Zahir Hawass' hands in that matter.

---

Thanks for the info :)

As I understand it, a geologist studied the sphinx and presented his findings to the American Geological Society in 2000 and in subsequent years. All 250 professional geologists present at the meeting agreed with this geologist's findings: that erosion on the sphinx's body was caused by water erosion.

Another interesting thing is that a friend of mine who was on a dig in Egypt recently got back and he stated that Hawass is currently digging under the sphinx! So stay tuned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Pericles, I must take exception to this part of your post. Those goofy French! Greenland is not two islands. Maybe they were just lost, eh? After all, they were on a "polar" expedition. A little off course to be in exploring Greenland, I'd say. Here's a map of Greenland. The ice cap is in white. The local ice caps and domes are in green. The ice-free areas in grey. Note that the glaciers run all the way to the sea in only a few places. The shoreline, non-glacial shoreline to be more specific, is clearly shown all the way around the island! Nice try. Sorry, guy. Greenland is one contiguous land mass. Try not to be so credulous.

---

Wow... I thought it was common knowledge that the landmass of Greenland was not a single entity. In fact I think I was taught that in High School (Gymnasium).

Think about it... The most logical places for the ice to reach the water would be on the exact dividinglines. It doesn't get any lower than that.

Good news on Hawass. I really want to know what is going on underneath the Sphinx. But imagine of they find something that proves the Sphinx is older than he has set it to be. Would he hush it down or would he bite the sour apple and publish it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

The website I gave is not en enemy to the map or Piri Reis. It gives credit to the map and its creator where credit is due. Exactly as at least one of your own links does while others of your links are just conspiracylinks.

---

Hi.

I am not trying to win any debates here - just having a friendly discussion. :)

I gave all those links because they provide all the sources from which they get their info. Most of those sites are not conspiracy related.

The link you gave states that Piri Reis should be credited with his own map. Clearly that professor has ignored what Piri Reis himself wrote on the map: that he claims NO credit for making the map! He states clearly in his own hand-writing that this map was drawn from about 20 other more ancient source maps, some of which date back to Alexander the Great. In fact, the Piri Reis map is only a small portion of a much large world map, which sadly is no longer in existence.

Quote:

---

It is you who are making the accomplishment of Piri, the accomplishment of egyptians and others look bad by incorporating all these mystical magic things into it that simply is not there, as if the accomplishment of Piri and the Egyptians aint great enough on its own, not an achievement unless you add these mystical powers to it.

---

Sorry, but you completely have misunderstood me. I make NO claims for the Piri Resi map whatsoever. I am merely making info available to OTHERS so that they can read it for themselves.

I have added NO mystical powers to this map!

My sole purpose in providing this info is that clearly in the past there was info available to catographers about the earth that they should not have had.

You can come to your own conclusion about this.

These maps have been proven to be genuine (not by me, but by dozens of scholars). Hapgood and his researchers spent 7 years studying these maps.

I have merely presented this info. If people here have any further curiosity about the subject, then I would suggest that they go to their libraries and read Charles Hapgood's book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings for themselves.

I have the book and have spent many years studying this question. It takes people with a real curiosity to want to really dig into it to prove it for themselves.

Quote:

---

I have no time to debate these people who think there is a orthodox science who want to either stop research or keep some things as secrets. I did it before and there simply is no point.

---

We are talking about the real world here.

Let's not be naive....

Clearly, you have never been involved with people who have their careers tied to what they believe.

Let's stop and think for a moment. If people were more advanced in antiquity, and if a catastrophe destroyed this civilization, and if orthodox science and history suddenly agreed with this. What do you think would happen?

All that has been taught in the past would be useless. Most textbooks would have to be re-written; everyone would have to re-learn everything; everything would be thrown into doubt. The mass of people would begin to question everything and everyone around them and wonder why all this info was not presented to them earlier.

No, it's better from science's point of view to dismiss or ignore the information. Just ask Galileo. Many members of the Inquisition agreed with his findings that the world was round. However, they hid his findings because that info would upset the state of the world.

It's called CONTROL over what we believe and think....

Let's not kid ourselves. Professors or politicians who do not tow the line quickly find themselves either without jobs or are ridiculed.

Quote:

---

Anyways have fun speculating and making things up, I enjoy readin it to, just dont portray things that are not true as true.Kalle

---

Please....

I am not speculating. I have tried to back statements with facts....

This is not a contest. I value your input. I don't have all the answers.

The issue here is not what I say or what you say.

The real issue is: If even a small percentage of these maps are correct, then that means, there is more to our history than we have been taught. Something is wrong with our current information.....

However, it is not my place to convince anyone of anything.

If people are interested they should dig into for themselves. It is very interesting.

No hard feelings.

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Pericles, I must take exception to this part of your post. Those goofy French! Greenland is not two islands. Maybe they were just lost, eh? After all, they were on a "polar" expedition. A little off course to be in exploring Greenland, I'd say. Here's a map of Greenland. The ice cap is in white. The local ice caps and domes are in green. The ice-free areas in grey. Note that the glaciers run all the way to the sea in only a few places. The shoreline, non-glacial shoreline to be more specific, is clearly shown all the way around the island! Nice try. Sorry, guy. Greenland is one contiguous land mass. Try not to be so credulous.

---

Hi.

The ancient cartographers showed Greenland as being made up of two islands (which were ice free). Probably, the water level was lower than it is now.

Today, we know that Greenland is indeed made up of two islands (thanks to seismic readings). Some even suggest that there are three islands present. But all that ice causes several problems for accurate study.

Those ancient map makers sure knew their stuff...

Read the info here:

http://www.antarctica.org/UK/Envirn/...oenland_UK.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Good news on Hawass. I really want to know what is going on underneath the Sphinx. But imagine of they find something that proves the Sphinx is older than he has set it to be. Would he hush it down or would he bite the sour apple and publish it?

---

Hard to say.

Here we have Hawass who is head of Egyptian antiquities. Would he place his job in jeopardy over findings that are controversial?

Hmmmm....

My friend has mentioned that Hawass is quite far along in his dig; he actually drew on a piece of paper what some of the chambers beneath the sphinx looks like. There is a long tunnel that runs beneath the sphinx that has many chambers that branch off from it.

It looks like those early investigators were right: there are chambers beneath the sphinx.

This is advanced news. I'm not sure if there are any websites available that have made this info known.

From my experience with archaeology, for every piece of info that is known, there are many dozens of pieces that are left unknown (packed away in drawers and crates).

Such is life.....

Pericles, first, read your "proof" about Greenland again. It says the island has two large cracks which run across the island. That makes it three land masses separated by cracks. Do cracks make them separate islands? No, except in a purely taxonomic sense, unless water runs between them. Your mysterious illustration purportedly showing something no one should know indicates islands separated by lots of water, not dry cracks. By the same definition, the continental USA consists of one large island and a smaller one consisting of California to the west of the San Andreas fault. Perhaps one of your amazingly ancient cartographers has drawn western California as an island? I think not.

Second, you claim the existence of a supposedly mysterious illustration which shows Greenland as "two" islands. Read your article again. It says three not two. The illustration, if it is so amazing, still got it wrong didn't it?

Third, the only way the "islands" of Greenland would be apparent, except as a distinction of geology, would be if the sea levels were higher when this supposedly accurate illustration was made so that water would separate the land masses as shown in the illustration. You can't have one "proof" showing a mysterious illustration which supposedly indicates the Bering Sea land bridge, which would only show if the sea levels were lower than they are now; and then claim another "proof" which depends upon the sea level being higher than it is now.

Lastly, most ancient astronaut theories and alien visitation theories to explain pre-history and anomalies in our present understanding of the ancient world rely on the musings of people who never learned one very important part of valid scientific inquiry while they slept through basic science - Occam's Razor. Had any of them stayed awake in their science classes before inventing their pseudo-scientific explanations, then they would know that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Pericles, first, read your "proof" about Greenland again. It says the island has two large cracks which run across the island. That makes it three land masses separated by cracks. Do cracks make them separate islands? No, except in a purely taxonomic sense, unless water runs between them. Your mysterious illustration purportedly showing something no one should know indicates islands separated by lots of water, not dry cracks. By the same definition, the continental USA consists of one large island and a smaller one consisting of California to the west of the San Andreas fault. Perhaps one of your amazingly ancient cartographers has drawn western California as an island? I think not.

---

What are you arguing about?

It has recently come to light that Greenland is two islands.

Argue with scientists; not me....

They also state that there may be three islands. But the ice is 1 mile thick, so it makes study difficult. Again, argue with the scientific community.

Quote:

---

Second, you claim the existence of a supposedly mysterious illustration which shows Greenland as "two" islands. Read your article again. It says three not two. The illustration, if it is so amazing, still got it wrong didn't it?

---

There may be three islands. Because there is so much ice, scientists aren't positive. I only gave one website; why not look into it for yourself - you claimed Greenland was a single island....

Even so, the ancient cartographers may have mapped Greenland when the water level was lower thus making only two islands.

Quote:

---

Third, the only way the "islands" of Greenland would be apparent, except as a distinction of geology, would be if the sea levels were higher when this supposedly accurate illustration was made so that water would separate the land masses as shown in the illustration. You can't have one "proof" showing a mysterious illustration which supposedly indicates the Bering Sea land bridge, which would only show if the sea levels were lower than they are now; and then claim another "proof" which depends upon the sea level being higher than it is now.

---

You are assuming that the land elevations for Greenland and the Bering Strait are the same. In addition, in the past the ice was not there, and the water level only has to be lower than it would appear today to provide the separation.

Even so, even today with all the ice covering Greenland scientists still state that there are two islands and maybe three. So the two-island appearance is evident even under the ice....

Quote:

---

Lastly, most ancient astronaut theories and alien visitation theories to explain pre-history and anomalies in our present understanding of the ancient world rely on the musings of people who never learned one very important part of valid scientific inquiry while they slept through basic science - Occam's Razor. Had any of them stayed awake in their science classes before inventing their pseudo-scientific explanations, then they would know that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. :book:

---

Where are you getting all this from?

Nowhere in any of my posts have I claimed alien visitors came to earth. In fact, you will read the contrary: that I in fact DO NOT believe in UFOS or little green men, nor do I believe that aliens visited earth in the distant past and gave mankind advanced knowledge.

The issue over Greenland is in fact one of the strongest proofs about the validity of the ancient cartographers.

For hundreds of years we believed that Greenland was a single island covered in ice.

It was not until the 20th Century (1947-49) that the Paul-Emile Victor French Polar Expeditions crossed the Greenland ice cap and made seismic profiles of the thickness of the ice (which is over 1 mile in thickness). They found that there was a strait that cut Greenland into two or three islands (see Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, p.154).

Yet, and unbelievably, this very fact (that Greenland was divided) was known thousands of years ago by ancient cartographers who mapped Greenland when NO ice covered it...

Quote:

---

Yet, and unbelievably, this very fact (that Greenland was divided) was known thousands of years ago by ancient cartographers who mapped Greenland when NO ice covered it...

---

That certainly is unbelievable since ice cores from the ice cap reveal it is at least 120,000 years old.

Which is to say the ice cap was in place at least 40,000 to 50,000 years before the earliest likely date for the emergence of modern humans from Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

We are talking about the real world here.

Let's not be naive....

Clearly, you have never been involved with people who have their careers tied to what they believe.

Let's stop and think for a moment. If people were more advanced in antiquity, and if a catastrophe destroyed this civilization, and if orthodox science and history suddenly agreed with this. What do you think would happen?

All that has been taught in the past would be useless. Most textbooks would have to be re-written; everyone would have to re-learn everything; everything would be thrown into doubt. The mass of people would begin to question everything and everyone around them and wonder why all this info was not presented to them earlier.

No, it's better from science's point of view to dismiss or ignore the information. Just ask Galileo. Many members of the Inquisition agreed with his findings that the world was round. However, they hid his findings because that info would upset the state of the world.

It's called CONTROL over what we believe and think....

---

Au contaire, science and the scientific community are very open.

What it doesn't have time for, is for pseudo-science. If a theory fails to meet scientific standards, it is therefore considered unscientific.

Since these scientific standards are rather universally applied by scientists, flawed theories or explanations will fail over and over again to gain scientific acceptance. This constant rejection leads many of the proponents of pseudo-science to believe that there therefore must be some sort of ulterior motive, a conspiracy behind this near universal rejection.


That is how the real world functions. Conspiracy theories are not the result of having been involved with people who have careers in science. Rather, they usually reveal their adherents to be isolated semi-intellectuals, operating at the fringes of the scientifc community.

Human, as in homo sapiens, expansion out of Africa occurred well after the last ice age began. Greenland was already completely covered in ice by this time. Unless your "ancient cartographers" were Neanderthals, they couldn't have seen Greenland before the ice sheet developed. The only other explanation would be ancient astronauts with ground penetrating radar or aliens; so that's where I get the idea that you think this must be the case. It certainly couldn't have been humans.

If the sea level was so much lower in your proposed time span during which these maps were drawn, then why do the same maps show the UK as an island? Any water level low enough to show Greenland as 3 separate islands would also have the UK connected to the Flemish coast. So much for that idea. If the sea level were higher, due to the fact that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't there (a large volume of water, enough to raise sea levels some meters), then why are the other land masses drawn at the same time using modern sea level shorelines? You can't have it both ways. If the maps are accurate with modern sea levels, then why only draw Greenland using sea levels from another period? It doesn't make sense.

As for the island thing, I'll say it again. Greenland is 3 islands only in a taxonomic sense. The cracks are more akin to fault lines than to fjords. Nowhere near the separation depicted by these "ancient cartographers" in their mysterious maps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

That certainly is unbelievable since ice cores from the ice cap reveal it is at least 120,000 years old.

Which is to say the ice cap was in place at least 40,000 to 50,000 years before the earliest likely date for the emergence of modern humans from Africa.

---

heheh

You are assuming a slow, uniform climate and land change.

A great deal of evidence exists that suggests that a climatic catastrophe occurred in the past, not the least of which is the presence of 250 different cultures and nations that speak about the occurrence of a great disaster in their myths and legends....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Au contaire, science and the scientific community are very open.

What it doesn't have time for, is for pseudo-science. If a theory fails to meet scientific standards, it is therefore considered unscientific.

Since these scientific standards are rather universally applied by scientists, flawed theories or explanations will fail over and over again to gain scientific acceptance. This constant rejection leads many of the proponents of pseudo-science to believe that there therefore must be some sort of ulterior motive, a conspiracy behind this near universal rejection.


That is how the real world functions. Conspiracy theories are not the result of having been involved with people who have careers in science. Rather, they usually reveal their adherents to be isolated semi-intellectuals, operating at the fringes of the scientifc community.

---

heheh

All I can say to the above is the world of knowledge is safe and secure with people like you guarding its portals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Human, as in homo sapiens, expansion out of Africa occurred well after the last ice age began. Greenland was already completely covered in ice by this time. Unless your "ancient cartographers" were Neanderthals, they couldn't have seen Greenland before the ice sheet developed. The only other explanation would be ancient astronauts with ground penetrating radar or aliens; so that's where I get the idea that you think this must be the case. It certainly couldn't have been humans.

---

You are assuming the theory of evolution is a valid theory.

And you are assuming a uniform theory of climatic change.

Neither theory has been proven.

Quote:

---

If the sea level was so much lower in your proposed time span during which these maps were drawn, then why do the same maps show the UK as an island? Any water level low enough to show Greenland as 3 separate islands would also have the UK connected to the Flemish coast. So much for that idea. If the sea level were higher, due to the fact that the Greenland ice sheet wasn't there (a large volume of water, enough to raise sea levels some meters), then why are the other land masses drawn at the same time using modern sea level shorelines? You can't have it both ways. If the maps are accurate with modern sea levels, then why only draw Greenland using sea levels from another period? It doesn't make sense.

---

You are assuming that the parts of Greenland that show divisions are at the same elevation as the UK.

Quote:

---

As for the island thing, I'll say it again. Greenland is 3 islands only in a taxonomic sense. The cracks are more akin to fault lines than to fjords. Nowhere near the separation depicted by these "ancient cartographers" in their mysterious maps.

---

Your argument is a circular one.

I am only the messenger.

If you cannot bear the idea of Greenland being two or three islands, then I suggest you contact the National Geographic Society and let them know how you feel.

Quote:

---

You are assuming a uniform climate and land change.

---

The idea never crossed my mind, since there is good scientific evidence that climate changes occur relatively rapidly.

I AM assuming radioisotope dating works, but I feel pretty secure in that.

As Louis VI the Fat suggests, we aren't really approaching this enquiry from the same premises, are we? Still, I suppose it makes a change from discussing evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

The idea never crossed my mind, since there is good scientific evidence that climate changes occur relatively rapidly.

I AM assuming radioisotope dating works, but I feel pretty secure in that.

As Louis VI the Fat suggests, we aren't really approaching this enquiry from the same premises, are we? Still, I suppose it makes a change from discussing evolution.

---

OK, the topic under discussion is now far removed from the topic thread, and I am not going to get bogged down in endless debate over scientific theory.

But I will say this:

Radioisotope Dating Systems

1) There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think. Radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain "bad" dates. See: J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (San Diego, CA: 1999).

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the "age" is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.

There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma (millions of years).


2) One of the biggest problems in any ice core study is determining the age-depth relationship. Many different approaches have been used and it is now clear that fairly accurate time scales can be developed for the last 10,000 years. Prior to that, there is increasing uncertainty about ice age. The problem lies with the fact that the age-depth is highly exponential, and ice flow models (e.g. Dansgaard & Johnson, 1969) are often needed to determine the ages of the deepest sections of ice cores.

Another major problem with ice core dating is the often held belief that the ice formed slowly over a long period of time. In fact, if a major catastrophe occurred or if there was a sudden climate change, then a great deal of ice could have formed which would invalidate ice core dating since depth would not be related to age.


3) One of the biggest problems is that researchers will often apply posterior reasoning to the dating samples. For example, if it is generally believed that an ice age occurred during a certain time period, then tests may be applied to get the desired result.

For example, let's look at the Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans "weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of "good" from "bad" results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).


Ancient Maps

Many of the ancient maps under discussion have been proven to be genuine by many scholars. If the information they contain does not agree with our preconceived notions about the past, then maybe the issue is not that those maps are wrong; maybe the issue is that our knowledge about the past is wrong.

Our understanding of the past is surely wrong in many aspects and we know far from all, thats partially why we have historians still.

Your understanding of the past however seem totoally null and void.

Also stop it with saying to people they are assuming things, if someone here is assuming things it is you, in absurdum.

And no, lets not get bogged down, unfortnatly when discussing with people with your "understanding" :dizzy2: of the world and its mystic secrets that is what happens.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Our understanding of the past is surely wrong in many aspects and we know far from all, thats partially why we have historians still.

Your understanding of the past however seem totoally null and void.

Also stop it with saying to people they are assuming things, if someone here is assuming things it is you, in absurdum.

And no, lets not get bogged down, unfortnatly when discussing with people with your "understanding" :dizzy2: of the world and its mystic secrets that is what happens.

Kalle

---

heheh

Well, be happy with your knowledge of the world.

I'm not quite sure what you guys are trying to prove here, but this thread has gone way off topic. We are basing are knowledge of ancient history off things we find in the ground and hearsay, this will nearly always lead us to more questions than answers. Now to say someones opinions of the past are wrong or ridiculous is ignorant, you cant prove their right, you cant prove their wrong. The fact of the matter is their is no proof, for all you know aliens did come here and affect human history, I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows, that's why these theories are still out there, because their is no proof to disclaim them. Why, because if their ever was any proof it is most likely long gone by now. All we can all do is assume, or go out there and try and find the answers. Now everything I have said only concerns pre-history. :focus: Since everyone here is avoiding the discussion on atlantis I figured I'd ask a question that no one will probably answer anyway. If I recall correctly, If I am mistaken please dont hesitate to tell me; which I have no doubt you guys will do, in plato's dialogues of atlantis it is mentioned that atlantis had controlled part of europe. Now my question is what part?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

heheh

All I can say to the above is the world of knowledge is safe and secure with people like you guarding its portals.

---

Hey, don't blame me. I'm only an insignificant part of the system, 'they' pay me withold the truth from the public. To feed the mass media just tiny pieces at a time, revealing the truth to the public in small careful doses.

The truth about the visits from the 'aliens'..how they have finally returned...and: why recently their visits have increased dramatically...

We have got to prevent the mass panic that would break out if we were to reveal all at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Hey, don't blame me. I'm only an insignificant part of the system, 'they' pay me withold the truth from the public. To feed the mass media just tiny pieces at a time, revealing the truth to the public in small careful doses.

The truth about the visits from the 'aliens'..how they have finally returned...and: why recently their visits have increased dramatically...

We have got to prevent the mass panic that would break out if we were to reveal all at once.

---

Again, these are statements that are made by someone who does not know what I was saying in the larger context, and who is obviously happy with the artifical state of their knowledge and the world.

I salute your blind bliss....

There is no giant conspiracy - it is more subtle than that.

Just look at the attacks in this thread against any ideas that others don't approve of. Magnify this within the academic world, and you'll see what I mean. There is a great deal of resistance to new ideas and theories in the scientific community. It's called inertia.... It's a systemic, subtle form of censorship. Academics quickly discover what is safe and what is not safe to discuss.

Those who step outside of approved research and academia are quickly ostracized. I could name numerous examples of such actions, but I feel they would only fall of deaf ears.

No wonder that most major new break-throughs have come through amateurs: such as Schliemann (founding Troy); Einstein (a clerk who discovered the Theory of Relativity); Edison (an amateur inventor), Copernicus, Galileo, Newton....

Anyway, I am done with this thread. I have far more important work to do, anyway. I was hoping for an interesting discussion. But as usual it has deteriorated into name calling and an all too often desire by a few to shut off the discussion....

A wise man long ago once said that we should not cast pearls before swine. I should have heeded that injunction many posts ago. However, I do so now...

For those who are curious and who seek a bit more understanding, I would suggest reading Dr. Charles Hapgood's book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. It can be found in any good library. In particular I would suggest not only reading from the beginning of the book, but also start reading on page 195 (where Hapgood outlines his basic ideas). In addition, also read The Notes starting on page 209 at the back of book (here is reproduced most the letters that were written between the representatives of Turkey and the US State Department in 1932 regarding the Piri Reis Map. Very enlightning, especially with regards to what Admiral Piri Reis himself says about the maps and about Columbus.).

In addition to the book, may I also suggest watching Graham Hancock's excellent multi-episode documentary called Quest for the Lost Civilization. Many libraries often carry this for free rental.

As for the others, I leave you all to grope around in the dark together.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

No wonder that most major new break-throughs have come through amateurs: such as Schliemann (founding Troy); Einstein (a clerk who discovered the Theory of Relativity); Edison (an amateur inventor), Copernicus, Galileo, Newton....

---

To put Pericles' accusation into perspective: at least four out of these six men, where academics or had had an academic education (I don't know about Edison and Schliemann), and the fact that their ideas were accepted (quite quickly in at least half the cases) shows that the academic world can be suprisingly open-minded, if the time is right. Unfortunatly, the time is not right for the revelation of an advanced mothercivilization that disappeared without a trace.

For people interested in the History of science and its often amusing (but sometimes tragic) errors, I recommend "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

I had prepared a somewhat longer answer, but like Pericles I feel it won't matter.

This thread is going in circles and isn't really performing any real function anymore.

:closed: