Who was the first guy who mentioned Atlantis?
Any historical evidence about it?
Discuss. :book:
Printable View
Who was the first guy who mentioned Atlantis?
Any historical evidence about it?
Discuss. :book:
I think Plato was the first and only person to mention it.
And to add, he claimed that the source was an Egyptian priest. (Thus the later "Minoan theory" that rose up.)
I think it's Plato's allegory extended once again.
Egyptian priest? Hmmm....
Actually, priests were to be trusted at that time...
There are countless mentions of the lost land of Atlantis. There are also remnant people's that lived in the isles that Atlantis might have existed that were like no others, but they were killed off. It is very interesting to also look at the similarities between the minoan civilization and the south american civilizations of argentina and Brazil. They both used the same 'axes' for the same reasons and they have similar words in their languages.
The myth will never be solved I am afraid, but it is still very fun to look through the clues. Try picking up a book on the myth of atlantis.
Plato used an account of the Atlantis story that originally came with Solon to greece, who got it from an egyptian priest in Sais a few generations earlier.
Were the Egyptian priests from Sais credible?
I personally was wondering about Plato's own credibility himself (authors often make up their sources to put their point forward, whatever that might be, which ranged from avoiding church persecution of "false" stories (Robinson Crusoe) to just distract the critics (Three Musketeers) and Plato might be one of them), but I have no real study on the subject, so take my word as an opinion+with a grain of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
But if it really descended in Athens (how? Plato was no Solon's descendant, and no Greeks, except Plato, recorded any such telling from Solon, at least to my, admittedly, rather ignorant knowledge) from Solon, then we must wonder if Solon was telling the truth and why did he brought such a strange myth from Egypt out of all that could be taken from real Egypt; and if Solon was real, then the question comes to yours. Which I wonder...
It must be strange for an Egyptian priest to claim that there was a nation once mightier than the Pharaoh of Egypt...
We must not forget many ancient cultures all over the world have similar stories of a civilization that was destroyed by the sea. The only thing that makes plato's dialogues stand out is the detail that plato goes into about their cities and culture. Given I have only read bits and pieces of his dialogues and have only heard people mention these other stories, of different civilizations not called atlantis, from other cultures.
Solon is a real character, who lived aproximately between 640-560 B.C.
He was the leader of Athens in 584BC, and became one of the 7 "High scholars" of Greece. He travelled to Egypt, but we only have some poetry from him, that's all. :embarassed:
Anyone have the Plato's texts about Atlantida?
Well I dont have plato's diologues, but I can give you link to a place where you can read a translated version(english).http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious...d_critias.html You can read it all or just the part that describes atlantis. Critias is the one that goes in depth about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Edit: I found another site that lists all of his works http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Plato.html
Thanks Telys. ~:cheers:
Any historical excavations about Atlanatis?
No problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please explain, I'm kinda slow.:stupido2:Quote:
Any historical excavations about Atlanatis?
Has any archaeologist excavated for Atlantis?
Ah, I am aware of that. He presumably helped establish the foundation of Athenian Democracy or something of sorts before getting exiled. My wording was so bad that when I read it again I got the impression that I was saying something along the lines of "Solon didn't exist." Sorry. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I am not aware of any excavations with the direct intention of finding Atlantis, though it wouldn't surprise me much if there are, but didn't get famous because of the lack of results. There are, however, many excavations on historical sites that theorists claimed could be the Atlantis of legend. Namely, the civilization in Peru (the Pyramids in the desert, among others), the coast of India (that underwater city), the Minoan civilization on Crete, Thera off the coast of Greece, even the South China Sea and Indonesia, etc. though the last ones are not excavations but theories alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
This is an interesting topic.
Over 250 different peoples and cultures around the world have stories, myths and legends about a great catastrophe that happened in the ancient past that destroyed great civilizations....
One cannot help but wonder about all the hundreds of thousands of books (and the knowledge they contained) that were lost in the great libraries of Alexandria and Constantinople when they were burned down and/or looted.....
In addition to Plato's Critias, another account of a great catastrophe is contained in the book The Epic of Gilgamesh.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a literary work from Babylonia, dating from long after the time that king Gilgamesh was supposed to have ruled. It was based on earlier Sumerian legends of Gilgamesh. The most complete version of the epic was preserved on eleven clay tablets in the collection of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. It is considered to be the oldest story ever recorded.
To read it go here:
http://gilgamesh.psnc.pl/
or here:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/
Believe me, that is one of my favourite subjects to talk about, and I hope one day, it will be solved. I hope it will be until I die. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
It is also a favourite topic of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
The Library of Alexandria contained hundreds of thousands of books that had been collected from all over the ancient world. Many of those collected books were from libraries that were even more ancient. For example, the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal had also collected a huge library of ancient books.
Yet, almost all these books are now lost....
What did these books contain?
Many were literary works; but also many books were about astronomy, science, math, history, philosophy, etc....
It was rumoured that the Library even contained a two volume encyclopdia about the world that had been written before a great catastrophe destroyed it....
I recall several claims of sites said to be possible ruins of atlantis, ie pyramids on the canary islands. Also the yoniguni monument in japan is believed to have some connection to the stories of an ancient civilization from the chinese, but Im still some what skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that great civilizations once existed in the ancient past:
1) The Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Charles Hapsgood - Extensively illustrated, this book contains copies of ancient maps (such as the Piri Reis Map) that depict the continent of Antarctica before it was covered in ice. These maps have proven to be authentic. Question is, Who mapped Antarctica and much of the world, prior to history as we know it?
2) Abundant archaeological evidence around the world clearly indicates peoples once existed who had an advanced knowledge of astronomy, math, building techniques, sailing, etc. In addition to huge building sites such as Stonehenge, many Pyramids (in Egypt, South America, China, etc), Easter Island statues, etc, there have also been found ancient batteries, drill bits, and an analog computer (that's been dated to have existed thousands of years ago). In addition, many city sites have recently been found underwater. Some of these submerged cities contain huge temple complexes (such as the ones found off the coast of Japan; the Mediterranean Sea alone contains two hundred submerged cities and towns).
3) There is a great deal of scientific evidence that places the so-called continent of Atlantis right where Plato said it was located. Just two examples:
* Many years after this continent submerged beneath the waves, the passage between the Pillars of Hercules was almost impossible to navigate by ship because of the muddy water and land beneath the water's surface.
* To this day, both birds and sea creatures still migrate to an area of water in the Atlantic Ocean. The trouble is, there is no longer any land existing in this location. Could these creatures, through instinct, be migrating to this location of water because at one time it contained land (and to which their ancient cousins once travelled)?
The more we learn, the less we know....
https://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?...ization3ia.jpg
I wanna be Bill Gates and fund the finding of the Library.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
But my greatest wish: The Library to be only mine. :skull:
hehehQuote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
A worthy dream.
When Heinrich Schlieman was 7 years old he told his dad that he was going to find the lost City of Troy (his dad had read stories to him about the city).
Well, his dad laughed of course...
But years later Schlieman became a wealthy businessman and had taught himself a dozen languages, and so he set off to not only find the lost City of Troy, but he also did extensive excavations on the Minoan Civilization.
Many of the greatest discoveries have been done by amateurs who had the courage to dream....
Here is some information on the Piri Reis Map:
In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin. Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.
Piri Reis had probably come into possession of charts once located in the Library of Alexandria, the well-known most important library of the ancient times.
According to Hapgood's reconstruction, copies of these documents and some of the original source charts were transferred to other centers of learning, and among them to Constantinople.
Then in 1204, year of the fourth crusade, when the Venetians entered Constantinople, those maps begun to circulate among the European sailors
***
On 6th July 1960 the U. S. Air Force responded to Prof. Charles H. Hapgood of Keene College, specifically to his request for an evaluation of the ancient Piri Reis Map:
6, July, 1960
Subject: Admiral Piri Reis Map
TO: Prof. Charles H. Hapgood
Keene College
Keene, New Hampshire
Dear Professor Hapgood,
Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.
The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.
The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.
This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.
The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.
We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.
Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander
***
Read more here:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm
To be certain, we do not know exactly how old the Egyptian pyramids are, nor the Sphinx.
The only real evidence we have for Cufu being the builder/inhabitant of the great pyramid is a small grafitti carving inside one of the small rooms (constructed for stabilty) above the king's chamber. Beyond that we can only speculate.
The steppyramids are however of the date we assume them to be, and the writing on the walls is actually fairly 'primitive', fitting with their time of suspected construction. So, this lack of evidence might not really be anything.
But the Sphinx is indeed odd. There are simply so many things that do not add up.
You know guys... When I watched National Treasure, and they found it, I said to my GF "Screw the gold and jewels... give me the scrolls of the library in Alexandria." I consider the loss of that knowledge to be the greatest loss for our civlization. Even if we are just dealing with fictious tales and poetry (which I don't read)... The connection to our most early days, to our time of legends.
Who wouldn't like to read Ptolomy's account of Alexander's campaigns? Or the big manual for phalanxwarfare by Polybius? Or the collected works of Fabius Pictor?
We see references to these works in all our most important historical works. And some times they say that those works are what we should look up to get a proper picture of things, ect ect. I pains me to stumble over such mentions.
Kraxis is deeply right about it. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
It's an invaluable loss. ~:(
Hey, can't we discuss at the thread that I created about the Library? Dis about Atlantis.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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 knowledge that was lost when this library was burned down is absolutely priceless.Quote:
You know guys... When I watched National Treasure, and they found it, I said to my GF "Screw the gold and jewels... give me the scrolls of the library in Alexandria." I consider the loss of that knowledge to be the greatest loss for our civlization. Even if we are just dealing with fictious tales and poetry (which I don't read)... The connection to our most early days, to our time of legends.
Who wouldn't like to read Ptolomy's account of Alexander's campaigns? Or the big manual for phalanxwarfare by Polybius? Or the collected works of Fabius Pictor?
We see references to these works in all our most important historical works. And some times they say that those works are what we should look up to get a proper picture of things, ect ect. I pains me to stumble over such mentions.
It is interesting that many of the most famous discoveries and ideas that came out of antiquity, came from people who either studied at the Great Library of Alexandria, or who had been librarians in it.
The Alexandrian library flourished for several hundred years, and was the center of cultural development in the west. Scholars from every field of knowledge and every corner of the Hellenistic world came to learn, study and teach at Alexandria. Paid staff included grammarians, historians, astronomers, geographers, mathematicians, physicians, and poets.
One has to wonder what scrolls, books and charts those people were studying....
Is it just mere coincidence that many of the great discoveries that were made in the ancient past came from people who also studied at the Great Library of Alexandria?
Here is a small example of some well-known scholars and their "discoveries":
The First Librarians
While Demetrius was a convert of Serapis and thus probably an official of the new Greco-Egyptian cult invented by Ptolemy, the Serapeum was not yet built at his death and he is remembered neither as librarian of that institution nor at the Museum. The first recorded Librarian was Zenodotus of Ephesus, holding that post from the end of Ptolemy I's reign until 245 B.C.E. His successor Callimachus of Cyrene was perhaps Alexandria's most famous librarian, creating for the first time a subject catalog in 120,000 scrolls of the Library's holdings, called the Pinakes or Tables. It was by no means comprehensive, but was more like a good subject index on the web. Apollonius of Rhodes, his younger rival and the writer of the notoriously meticulous epic, Argonautica, seems to have been Callimachus' replacement. Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Stoic geographer and mathematician, succeeded him in 235, and compiled his "tetagmenos epi teis megaleis bibliothekeis", the "scheme of the great bookshelves". In 195 Aristophanes, a Homeric scholar of no relation to the comic playwright, took up the position, and updated Callimachus' Pinakes. The last recorded librarian was Aristarchus of Samothrace, the astronomer, who took up the position in 180 B.C.E. and was driven out during dynastic struggles between two Ptolemies. While the library and Museum persisted for many centuries afterwards, from that time onward scholars are simply recorded as Alexandrian, and no Librarians are mentioned by name.
Mathematics
Alexandrian mathematicians concerned themselves for the most part with geometry, but we know of some researches specific to number theory. Prime numbers were a source of fascination from the time of the Pythagoreans onwards. Eratosthenes the Librarian dabbled in numbers along with everything else, and is reported to have invented the "sieve", a method for finding new ones. Euclid also was known to have studied this tricky subject.
Eudoxis of Cnidus, Euclid's pupil, probably worked out of Alexandria, and is known for developing an early method of integration, studied the uses of proportions for problem solving, and contributed various formulas for measuring three dimensional figures. Pappus , a fourth century A.D. scholar, was one of the last of the Greek mathematicians and concentrated on large numbers and constructions in semicircles (See Vatican manuscript), and he was also an important transmitter into European culture of astrology gleaned from eastern sources. Theon and his daughter Hypatia also continued work in astronomy, geometry, and mathematics, commenting on their predecessors, but none of their works survive.
Astronomy
Earlier Greek astronomers had concentrated on theoretical models of the universe; Alexandrians now took up the task of detailed observations and mathematical systems to develop and buttress existing ideas.
Eratosthenes, the versatile third librarian, amassed a poetic catalog of 44 constellations complete with background myths, as well as a list of 475 fixed stars. Hipparchus was credited with inventing longitude and latitude, importing the 360-degree circular system from Babylonia, calculating the length of a year within six minutes accuracy, amassing sky-chart of constellations and stars, and speculated that stars might have both births and deaths.
Schemes of the Universe
Aristarchus applied Alexandrian trigonometry to estimate the distances and sizes of the sun and moon, and also postulated a heliocentric universe. Hipparchus of Bithynia, during the reign of Ptolemy VII, discovered and measured the procession of the equinoxes, the size and trajectory of the sun, and the moon's path.
Geometry
The Alexandrians compiled and set down many of the geometric principles of earlier Greek mathematicians, and also had access to Babylonian and Egyptian knowledge on that subject. This is one of the areas in which the Museum excelled, producing its share of great geometers, right from its inception. Demetrius of Phaleron is said to have invited the scholar Euclid to Alexandria, and his Elements are well-known to be the foundation of geometry for many centuries. His successors, notably Apollonius of the second century B.C.E., carried on his research in conics, as did Hipparchus in the second century A.D. Archimedes is credited with the discovery of pi.
Eratosthenes and Spherical Geometry: Calculating the Earth's circumference
The third librarian of Alexandria, Eratosthenes (275-194 B.C.E), calculated the circumference of the earth to within 1%, based on the measured distance from Aswan to Alexandria and the fraction of the whole arc determined by differing shadow-lengths at noon in those two locations. He further suggested that the seas were connected, that Africa might be circumnavigated, and that "India could be reached by sailing westward from Spain." Finally, probably drawing on Egyptian and Near Eastern observations, he deduced the length of the year to 365 1/4 days and first suggested the idea of adding a "leap day" every four years.
Mechanics: Applied Science
Archimedes was one of the early Alexandria-affiliated scholars to apply geometers' and astronomers' theories of motion to mechanical devices. Among his discoveries were the lever and-- as an extension of the same principle-- the "Archimedes screw," a handcranked device for lifting water. He also figures in the tale of the scientist arising from his tub with the cry of "Eureka" after discovering that water is displaced by physical objects immersed in it.
Hydraulics was an Alexandria-born science which was the principle behind Hero's Pneumatics, a long work detailing many machines and "robots" simulating human actions. The distinction between practical and fanciful probably did not occur to him in his thought-experiments, which included statues that poured libations, mixed drinks, drank, and sang (via compressed air). He also invented a windmill-driven pipe organ, a steam boiler which was later adapted for Roman baths, a self-trimming lamp, and the candelaria, in which the heat of candle-flames caused a hoop from which were suspended small figures to spin. His sometimes whimsical application of the infant sciences are reminiscent of the modern Rube Goldberg's "inventions" during the technological revolution of this century.
Medicine
The study of anatomy, tracing its roots to Aristotle (see Andrea's case study on Aristotelian anatomy), was conducted extensively by many Alexandrians, who may have taken advantage both of the zoological gardens for animal specimens, and Egyptian burial practices and craft for human anatomy. One of its first scholars, Herophilus, both collected and compiled the Hippocratic corpus, and embarked on studies of his own. He first distinguished the brain and nervous system as a unit, as well as the function of the heart, the circulation of blood, and probably several other anatomical features. His successor Eristratos concentrated on the digestive system and the effects of nutrition, and postulated that nutrition as well as nerves and brain influenced mental diseases. Finally, in the second century A.D., Galen drew upon Alexandria's vast researches and his own investigations to compile fifteen books on anatomy and the art of medicine.
Incredible Pericles. Can you please post them in the Library of Alexandria thread? Thanks. ~:)
I've sent you a PM. Check it out. :book:
There is loads of evidence about the existence of Atlantis, and most of it is pseudo-science. The Piri Reis Map is just one example of it. It doesn't show the antartic coast's correct shape and the location is off by hundreds of miles. It probably represents the "southland" often added by Medieval carthographers to their maps. Anyway, why would the Medieval Turks need a map of the Antartic coast if they would bump into ice long before reaching it?
I would like to add that Hapgood nor Von Daniken (who copiedd his work) aren't respected scientists.
I wish I could go deeper into this, but I haven't got my encyclopedia on pseudo-sciences ready. Suffice to say, though Atlantis is one of the biggest entries, the authors still failed to cover everything that has been mentioned about it and everyone who wrote about it. The authors incline to the theory that the Atlantis myth was inspired by the disasters at Krete and Thera and a similar disaster that befell a Greek isle just before or during Plato's life time. They also suggested a link with the myth of Troy. Though Plato IIRC claims the events happend 8000 BC, the translation contains an error turning hundreds into thousands. If so, the fall of Atlantis must be around 1200 BC. This also happens to be the time the Illiad is supposed to take place in.
I do agree that we need to separate the silly from the proven. There is a lot of silly stuff written about Atlantis, which I do not agree with....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
And I do not believe in UFOS and little green men...
You are confusing two subjects: Atlantis with the Piri Reis Map.
The Piri Reis map does NOT depict Atlantis. This map has nothing whatsoever to do with Atlantis.
The Piri Reis Map depicts land masses that were unknown at the time of the map's creation (in 1513).
The Piri Reis Map has been proven to be authentic, not only by Turkish and US scholars, but also by the USAF 8th Reconnaisasance Technical Squadron (Strategic Air Command).
In addition to the Piri Reis Map, there are many other ancient maps which also depict land masses that should not have been known about at the time those maps were drawn:
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.
What one cannot explain; one dismisses...
Hi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Some people object to certain things without having taken the time to fully do research on the topic.
It is not my job to convince you or anyone else; if one has made up one's mind about something, then all the evidence in the world will mean nothing.
However, I have Hapgood's book of the Ancient Sea kings.
One must remember that sea levels have risen and fallen over time. The map depicting Antarctica probably shows the land mass before a significant rise in sea levels occurred (in other words we are seeing more land that is visible than what now presently is showing).
That Turkish Admiral was a well-respected Admiral who was well known for his leadership and meticulous cartography. He probaby had access to the libraries in Constantinople. On the map he drew, the famous Piri Reis Map, he clearly notes that he drew his map based on many other more ancient source maps, including maps from the time of Alexander the Great.
Antarctica was simply not known about at the time he drew his map (1513). It compares favourably with the seismic mapping of Antarctica in 1949.
Hmmmm... interesting that you lump Hapgood with von Daniken.Quote:
I would like to add that Hapgood nor Von Daniken (who copiedd his work) aren't respected scientists.
I think von Daniken is a phoney.
Hapgood, on the other hand, is a Professor. He did not find these maps. He, in addition to many other scholars, have taken the time to study the maps. In addition, he has also taken the time to have many of these maps authenticated by outside, international scholars, all of whom have declared these maps to be authentic.
I should also note that Einstein corresponded with Hapgood and agreed with many of his interpretations.
With all due respect to your encyclopedia on pseudo-sciences, but may I suggest you do some outside reading? Many of these types of encyclopedias are put together by people who do general and questionable research, and who write these books for the mass public which corresponds to "fixed" and orthodox views of the world.Quote:
I wish I could go deeper into this, but I haven't got my encyclopedia on pseudo-sciences ready. Suffice to say, though Atlantis is one of the biggest entries, the authors still failed to cover everything that has been mentioned about it and everyone who wrote about it. The authors incline to the theory that the Atlantis myth was inspired by the disasters at Krete and Thera and a similar disaster that befell a Greek isle just before or during Plato's life time. They also suggested a link with the myth of Troy. Though Plato IIRC claims the events happend 8000 BC, the translation contains an error turning hundreds into thousands. If so, the fall of Atlantis must be around 1200 BC. This also happens to be the time the Illiad is supposed to take place in.
Time-and-time again, new discoveries have proven old ideas to be absolutely wrong.
For centuries, it was believed that the world was flat; that Troy was just a myth; that Pompeii never existed; that the Hittites were a fabrication; etc, etc...
Most famous discoveries were done by amateurs who stood outside the orthodox sciences and followed their hunches based on their acquired knowledge of the world.
Orthodox archaeology and history refuse to entertain any ideas that do not agree with their fixed ideas about the past. These "professionals" are trapped within their mindsets and value their careers over exploring new fields of ideas and evidence.
One needs to do more outside reading based on respected authors. Believe me, there is more under heaven and earth, than is contained in anyone's narrow ideas....
I quite agree. Even scientists can be insular and narrow-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
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:
KalleQuote:
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.
hehehQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
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.
The Sphinx is more than just geology...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
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
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 Pericles
Thanks for the info :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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?
Hi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
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.
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.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.
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.
We are talking about the real world here.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.
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.
Please....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
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!
Hi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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
Hard to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
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
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.
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....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?
Even so, the ancient cartographers may have mapped Greenland when the water level was lower thus making only two islands.
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.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.
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....
Where are you getting all this from?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:
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...
That certainly is unbelievable since ice cores from the ice cap reveal it is at least 120,000 years old.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...
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.
Au contaire, science and the scientific community are very open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
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.
hehehQuote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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....
hehehQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
All I can say to the above is the world of knowledge is safe and secure with people like you guarding its portals.
You are assuming the theory of evolution is a valid theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
And you are assuming a uniform theory of climatic change.
Neither theory has been proven.
You are assuming that the parts of Greenland that show divisions are at the same elevation as the UK.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.
Your argument is a circular one.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.
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.
The idea never crossed my mind, since there is good scientific evidence that climate changes occur relatively rapidly.Quote:
You are assuming a uniform climate and land change.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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
hehehQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
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: