Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Papayapple said:

That's crushing Nungali, but you haven't really answered anything, just pushed it away.
I believe it'll be hard to stick to Atlantis solely, as long as we don't establish what the Egyptians could and couldn't do.
Better do that than to mess around trying to make sense of some psychic's accounts.

But you've got a point. Someone, somehow built it. Just like anything else. Clearly they didn't have building cranes and diamond plate saws. It took people 200 years to build Notre Dame. Isn't it more likely that the scientists got their "20 years" wrong?

 

 

Well, all sorts of things are being thrown up here ... including cocaine mummies !   To put forward the opposing arguments on all of it we would never get to the summary of findings about Atlantis and the Ice Age (if there is ever going to be one made ! ) and then get on to the next part . 

 

At the beginning  Sterny set out what he hoped to achieve in  this thread.   Its a big  subject considering all the things that can be drawn into it . I am happy to  talk about ideas about how the GP was constructed, but that would be another big thread. If you want to make a thread like that I will be happy to   join in . Maybe Apech will to as he has some interesting ideas about usage .

 

It seems you specifically are questioning the time period it took to build it .  So do I .  Also look at the time period and the King's reigns  that cover nearly ALL the large pyramids built ... it doesnt make sense .   Not to me .  Supposedly  a few Kings had numerous pyramid constructions gong at once .

  

But I  also dont automatically assume that priests  incanted spells and the blocks levitated and 'flew' up the sides of the pyramids .  Or that they cut stones with solar rays reflected off a big golden mirror  , or any other wacky idea that just entered someone's head.
 

It seems a trait of certain humans, over time, just not now, that when stumped by a problem, they have to think up a silly solution ... the important thing seems ( to them ) not how silly the solution is, but the concept to think they solved it  seems to overrule  their common sense and logic and  the facts,  and archaeology .

 

Tracking down  REAL solutions is actually very hard years long  work and is  updated by continuous new finds as we go along (like Merer's diary)

 

But for here,  in regard to some of the issues I would refer you to the work of Mark Lehner 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/35-who-made-a-difference-mark-lehner-114734077/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lehner

 

 

and  Jean-Pierre Houdin

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Houdin

 

 

on construction.

 

Now we also have  a diary , a first hand account of a TGP  'stone mover'  / inspector, very interesting stuff !

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Merer

 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/

 

 

But as for specifics on labour , that is rarer , I do have a book on it (in storage, cant remember  title or author ) by a modern construction project engineer ... as with others , its based on modern estimates (and that depends on what techniques one uses in construction  to calculate hours and rates of production - and we aren't sure on methods so it's all up in the air anyway ).  I will attempt to dig it out and have a look .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The oldest papyri with text ever found. 2013
Wow, so you can still discover something in 21st century :D
 

The video in the last link is well worth watching.
 

Edited by Papayapple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Apech said:

I am agnostic on Atlantis - but even that doesn't mean anything until you say with some precision what is meant by it.  For instance when and for how long did this 'civilisation' exist.  In what sense was it advanced?  What technology would it have to have?  Where according to the proposed 'influenced' cultures such as Egypt and Gobekli Tepe and so on would we expect it to be?

 

Well, in this thread,  apparently we are going on Plato's descriptions.  But I have noted in some cases , elements of those descriptions can be ignored or modified when looking for other locations and indicators .  Nothing else, like the things you mentioned, seems defined. 

 

I think Michael now needs to make a brief summary of points relating to what he does mean, and the parameters of the discussion and any conclusions so far re. Plato's descriptions of Atlantis and how that interfaces with the Ice Age . ... . .   and 'Deluge' . (which I have to assume means the ocean rise after the end of the ice age  ?  -  diluvian ; flood  ) ... or are we talking about the 'Biblical Flood'  ... a flood that covered the 'whole world'    ?   :huh:

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

As far as Plato is concerned how far is his description reflective of Athens i.e. a city state and so on.  Perhaps this is just back projection after all.

 

I think what we can be certain of is that Neolithic man (the hunter gatherers) were capable of much more then we give them credit for.  They may have had more complex and distributed social networks, idea and knowledge about the world.  Perhaps one problem might be that when anthropologists study modern hunter gatherers they are actually looking at marginal societies - whereas when this was the only lifestyle of mankind then things were different.

 

 

 

Yeah .   The more we find new things and learn more about them, the larger our picture gets .  GT did that .  New histories  being published in Australia (actually focusing on ignored parts of old histories ) do that .

 

Who knows what we may dig up in Egypt or elsewhere this year ?

 

Ancient Okney is fascinating , a complex linked to other complexes 1000s of km away,  people freely travelled between them, on foot apparently ,  old versions of Stonehenge where one of the centres. all before the building of the Great Pyramid. That was not known about until relatively recently .

 

Also , people functioned well in some places DURING the ice age .... even in Tasmania, amidst glaciers !  There where ice free 'refuges' .

 

The world was a very different place back then

 

mappingminute-doggerland-featured.jpg

 

 

The carving out by flood of the English Chanel  must have been spectacular .

07.html

 

 

 

269481.bin?w968

 

 

cc_Finish_highres_2_16x9.jpg?itok=Z6Twp0

 

age-s-end-web-site_001.jpg

 

 

 

... as long as you where not 'downstream' of it

 

 

300px-Francis_Danby_deluge.jpg

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2019/mar/11/a-big-jump-people-might-have-lived-in-australia-twice-as-long-as-we-thought?fbclid=IwAR3ykgO4UGfiymylmli-G1dTUP7P7L-cwbswkDM3rk2RrUmKGmrYrSmYkV8

 

"Extensive archaeological research in southern Victoria has again raised the prospect that people have lived in Australia for 120,000 years – twice as long as the broadly accepted period of human continental habitation.

The research, with its contentious potential implications for Indigenous habitation of the continent that came to be Australia, has been presented to the Royal Society of Victoria by a group of academics including Jim Bowler, the eminent 88-year-old geologist who in 1969 and 1974 discovered the bones of Mungo Lady and Mungo Man, the oldest human remains found in Australia.

Mungo Man, his remains discovered in a dry water bed in the Willandra Lakes district of New South Wales, lived some 42,000 years ago. He was a modern human or homo sapien, Indigenous to Australia, who was buried with sophisticated funerary rites including the use of fire and ochre."

 

"The article’s abstract reads: “Thermal luminescence analyses of blackened stones provide ages in the ... range ... 100-130 ka [thousand years], consistent with independent stratigraphic evidence and contemporaneous with the age of the surface in which they lie. The distribution of fire-darkened stones is inconsistent with wildfire effects. Two hearth-like features closely associated with the disconformity provide further indication of potential human agency. The data are consistent with the suggestion of human presence at Warrnambool during the last Interglacial.”"

 

“The prospect, however, of humans in that locality at 120 ka [years ago], although consistent with evidence presents more questions than answers. Who were they? Why here and not elsewhere? Why no legacy of any toolkit, no traces of food let alone human remains? In the absence of bones, stone flakes or any independent trace of people, the notion of occupation at 120 ka currently remains difficult to credit. However, marine shells, stones in unexplained depositional context and fire resemblance to hearth, successively diminish the possibility of a natural explanation. That absence leaves the currently unlikely option of human agency as the most likely alternative.”

Edited by Apech
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, its not the only case like that .There is evidence of people living in the extreme north (Siberia)  and  in North Africa ( Jebel Irhoud in Morocco) *    last interglacial .  But they appeared to have died out and left no  genetic ancestors .

 

 

*  Summary

 

Researchers have redated a long-overlooked skull from a cave called Jebel Irhoud in Morocco to a startling 300,000 years ago, and unearthed new fossils and stone tools. The result is the oldest well-dated evidence of Homo sapiens, pushing back the appearance of our kind by 100,000 years. The new discoveries, reported in Nature, suggest that our species came into the world face-first, evolving modern facial traits while the back of the skull remained elongated and similar at least in this respect to those of Neandertals and other archaic humans. The findings also suggest that the earliest chapters of our species's story may have played out across the African continent.

 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/993

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How did people get to Australia during an interglacial ; ocean lower, sea distances between land greater. ?

 

I can  not give a reference to it but it arose in a conversation elsewhere; there was a case where a huge floating raft of vegetation broke off a river bank in a flood,  In floated downstream and out into the ocean, it had plants and fruiting trees and little animals and some monkeys on it .

 

 Far fetched ?    Well, the Uru people of Peru  live like that today !

 

uros-floating-islands-1080x675.jpg

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/03/2019 at 12:07 AM, Papayapple said:

....

But you've got a point. Someone, somehow built it. Just like anything else. Clearly they didn't have building cranes and diamond plate saws. It took people 200 years to build Notre Dame. Isn't it more likely that the scientists got their "20 years" wrong?

 

I meant to get back to you on this 30 years to build the Great Pyramid  'thing' and the 'impossible' rate of block finishing per day, according to the numbers . You might find this interesting ;

 

https://ashtronort.wordpress.com/the-great-pyramid-of-giza-20-years-to-build/

 

 

We also need to think about it being a seasonal project as well, at least parts of  it.  Most stone came via the Nile, whose levels  and currents fluctuated  greatly .    So it may not have been 'year round work' .

 

What says Apech on the time it took to build TGP  ? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10.3.2019 at 10:51 PM, Apech said:

I am agnostic on Atlantis - but even that doesn't mean anything until you say with some precision what is meant by it.  For instance when and for how long did this 'civilisation' exist.  In what sense was it advanced?  What technology would it have to have?  Where according to the proposed 'influenced' cultures such as Egypt and Gobekli Tepe and so on would we expect it to be?

 

These are all very important questions that you are asking. And as long as there is no unambiguous archeological evidence available, the way to proceed is to  lay out the indications that archeology, history, mythology, even psychics provide and to see how it all may fit together. In essence, that's what people like Bauval, Collins, Schoch, Hancock are doing, and that's what I am intending with this thread, to whatever extent it may be possible.

 

Taking the available evidence and formulating theories, which may or may not be proven eventually, that's the methodology of academic sciencists too, of course, except that they are being more cautious with their conclusions than most of the popular 'Atlantologists'. This is sometimes a good thing, however, official science does have its biasses and blinders too, and many a professor won't dare to touch a topic that is too controversial, fearing for their reputation. Thus it takes people like Hancock et al. to address a wide audience and that way to start and stir the necessary discussion.

 

On 10.3.2019 at 10:51 PM, Apech said:

As far as Plato is concerned how far is his description reflective of Athens i.e. a city state and so on.  Perhaps this is just back projection after all.

 

Plato is a good point of reference in this discussion, IMO, in which speculation abounds.  After all, it was him who first taught us about Atlantis, and moreover, about so many things that are now central to philosophy, both orthodox and occult.

 

On 10.3.2019 at 10:51 PM, Apech said:

I think what we can be certain of is that Neolithic man (the hunter gatherers) were capable of much more then we give them credit for.  They may have had more complex and distributed social networks, idea and knowledge about the world.  Perhaps one problem might be that when anthropologists study modern hunter gatherers they are actually looking at marginal societies - whereas when this was the only lifestyle of mankind then things were different.

 

Most of all, we tend to see those societies through our own cultural biasses. Thus, for a long time, it was generally believed by academics that there was little mysticism in ancient Egypt, just because some of the defining criteria for the latter set up by those same academics were not being met - when ancient authors as well as modern esotericists had been telling us all along about Egypt's profound spirituality all along! However, it took Jeremy Naydler's book Shamanic Wisdom in the Pyramid Texts: The Mystical Tradition of Ancient Egypt to make the idea at least more acceptable to academic science.

 

So I believe that it is the mystics, esotericists, occultists (and I would count e.g. Graham Hancock and John Anthony West among those) that have the edge over academic scientists when it comes to understanding ancient cultures, as they are more likely to do so in the latter's own terms.

 

But again, I by no means deny the importance of the archeologist's discoveries... I just think we can use and learn from all those contributions to the field.

 

"The mind is like a parachute: It only works when it's open." - Ed Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

What says Apech on the time it took to build TGP  ? 

Its not  the time. Its the man-hours available. There could not be enough man-hours in ancient egypt to both maintain the normal livelihood of the nation and to dedicate enough man-power to the project, during any reasonable duration of time.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

 

... by people that haven't studied mythology and  cultural anthropology  perhaps.   A lot of things are said ....'being said' isnt a token of validity.

 

I would rather say  some myths have a true core ... others do not - apparently .  EG . some Aboriginal 'myths' talk about the sea level rising and the land slowly being inundated, and the 'hero ancestors' that bought palm seeds way inland to plant by water , making 'oasis'  ,  both now proven by modern research.  The other side  is, for example, the Bundjalung myth that they originally came from Venus .  (Aside from the  issue that Bundjalung elders also say they came from Arnhem Land , down the east coast in a canoe, out of the earth , where the first people ever in the world , etc .

 

All of that may indeed have a meaning...

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

The modern interpretations (and using them to their own advantages - usually book sales )  is also present in this example, with the Strong Brothers, seizing on the Venus myth and tying it in with a whole lot of modern day alternative alien bullshit .

 

Such alternative people seem to just pick and choose what suits their agenda, then use the indigenous myths as giving validity to their ideas and agendas.

 

...although it is probably not to be taken literally.

 

That said, I would not dismiss any ideas regarding human contact with aliens (be in times ancient or modern) a priori. E.g., many American Indian tribes have legends about 'star people'. However, that's a different discussion, and from my perspective, we can treat the 'lost civilization' topic quite apart from it.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

That is what I was on about .

 

 

 

Igne Natura Renovatur Integra

 

 

So then,  we shall restrict ourselves to the idea of  Atlantis presented by Plato .

 

(Although I have noted tenancies to not worry so much about that when other ideas are presented . If it is all about what Plato said, then  we  would  restricted to the idea of a huge island  in front of Straights off Gibraltar  along with the others descriptions given by him.

 

Yeah, it is neither necessary nor even possible to be fussy in a thread like this. My idea for it, however, is to use Plato's hypothesis as our primary frame of reference.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

 

 

Not much I would say. Most development comes about after history starts to be recorded.  Sure we have 'stories' . For example "persian' history starts with  a note in the  annals of Shalmaneser II, an Assyrian king, who reigned in the 9th century bce, where 'Parsa' are recorded as coming down from the mountain wilderness and into the valley area to the east .

 

Much later, Persian 'history'  (or 'ore-history' ) is written and a whole era is written about replete with King lists, 'history' , heroes, dragons , flying horses , etc    - 'Pishdadian Era'   

 

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/early-rulers-persia-part-i-pishdadian-dynasty-005439

 

   YET   ...

 

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-ii-pre-islamic-period

 

 

 

Nah .

 

 

Yep ... but not multi ton 'flying blocks' .   . .  using 'psychic forces' ... really this is in the category of 'wild speculation' .

 

Well, much as with aliens, you seem to have decided that magic (at least the kind that seemingly defies the laws of physics), dragons and flying horses are BS - whereas these and many other things for which there is little objective proof in some way constitute very much a part of the world that I am living in. We can simply agree to disagree here, though.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

They are examples of techniques , not whole projects . It was in response to what you stated :   "a s long as nobody actually replicates some of the ancient Egyptians' most astounding feats with nothing but primitive tools  "

 

Do you really expect modern archaeologists to mobilise half a country workforce and economy to build a complete replica of the Great Pyramid to prove a point to 'occult theorists' ?

 

Its more of a question of organisation motivation  innovation economy politics .   And those are things that  motivated it in the past  and would would stop it or make it 'impossible'  today , more so than any technological achievements.

 

Also I can post a wealth of info on how they supposedly DID do it .  But is that our focus at present  ?

 

It is ice age and Plato's Atlantis isnt it ?

 

I remain sceptical regarding the conclusiveness of what you presented so far even factoring in the vast workforce supposedly available to a pharaoh - but as I said, I am looking forward to more of your material once we are going to talk specifically about the idea of our lost civilization's influence on Egypt. Expect me to start that proposed thread on this any moment now, as this one is going more and more off the rails.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

Yes, best NOT to mention ideas that people moved  200   ton blocks like lego  as that is a vast speculation ,  an exaggeration and I will not discuss 'giants' here .

 

 

Thats for fine work, not for cutting huge blocks.  I can show you how it  is thought they did the majority of that , it isnt with copper saws . 

 

I can answer and show all this, if you want continual tangential discussions , or I can stick (like I said last post ) to Ice age and atlantis via Plato .

 

Alright, let's leave all that for the dedicated topic.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

Wrong assumptions dont add up very well.     Hancock ...   Shmamcock .

 

This is nothing but ridicule - best to be ignored.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

My fault is ; I try to look at both sides reasonably and I am critical of weakness or woo in either side, when I see it .

 

 

 

Good. becasue I can show pages of scientifc discourse  and analysis of the results  showing otherwise.

 

Do I  keep answering these things thrown thrown up - or do I still keep tyring to stick to  Atlantis and Ice Age .

 

 

 

Let's focus on that part for a bit then ?

 

Yes, considerations regarding how Magdalenian culture may tie in with Plato's Atlantis do belong here.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

Well, you made the claim, let's see 'em.   It is fairly essential to your claim of Atlantean influence  on  Magdalenian art .

 

I would love to see a picture of a Magdalenian  horse with bridle   ... and I dont mean some obscure line drawn that some dude says is a bridle or lead .

 

Here goes:

 

img20190312_07452848.thumb.jpg.9aff2f691f70601e78f09769347dfed9.jpg

 

These are Magdalenian engravings from (a) St. Michel d' Arudy, (b) Grotte de Marsoulas, (c) La Marche. (Illustration scanned from M. Settegast: Plato Prehistorian, p. 27.)

 

I somehow doubt that you will find this really convincing (and won't be losing any sleep over it, TBH), however, the book text accompanying these pictures says:

 

The idea that the horse was harnessed in Upper Paleolithic southwest Europe was first proposed eighty years ago, based in part on the representations of what seemed to be bridles or cords attached to the heads of several horses in Magdalenian art (fig. a). Until recently, however, the prevailing opinion held that these must have been stylized anatomical features rather than external equipment. But in 1966 the team of Pales and St. Pereuse meticulously analysed the engraving of a horse's head from the Magdalenian site of La Marche (fig. c); and after considering bone structure and musculature, and using a relief imprint to determine the order in which the elements had been engraved, they concluded that the lines that seemed to form a harness were indeed secondary, and not a schematization of internal or superficial anatomy. A more recent study of parietal art at the Grotte de Marsoulas included the engraving of a horse which, according to the analyst, had been supplied with a halter (fig. b). In the opinion of a leading group of British paleoeconomists, the "onus of demonstration" has now definitely been shifted to those who continue to maintain that the horse was solely an object of the hunt in Paleolithic times, but prehistorians have yet to find a means of incorporating this phenomenon into the conventional framework, which holds that the horse was not domesticated until the fourth or possibly the fifth millenium B.C.

 

On 9.3.2019 at 10:48 PM, Nungali said:

 

 

OK . I hope we look at the  evidence for it too

 

 

 

On the previous post as well ?   I did  that and  said I would restrain myself  at present to issues about ice age and atlantis. 

 

.... I was just being  'polite'   answering all the above      :) 

 

I was talking about this post which you neglected to comment on so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10.3.2019 at 11:31 PM, Nungali said:

 

Well, in this thread,  apparently we are going on Plato's descriptions.  But I have noted in some cases , elements of those descriptions can be ignored or modified when looking for other locations and indicators .  Nothing else, like the things you mentioned, seems defined. 

 

What I proposed in my OP was meant as a guideline. But of course I was aware that in a thread like this one, there is an inevitable tendency for the discussion to get sidetracked, and if I would have wanted to rigorously avoid that, I would have had to start this topic in my PPD. But I decided not to do that, as I intended to invite wider participation, plus I think that some digression can actually be worthwhile.

 

Quote

I think Michael now needs to make a brief summary of points relating to what he does mean, and the parameters of the discussion and any conclusions so far re. Plato's descriptions of Atlantis and how that interfaces with the Ice Age . ... . .   and 'Deluge' . (which I have to assume means the ocean rise after the end of the ice age  ?  -  diluvian ; flood  ) ... or are we talking about the 'Biblical Flood'  ... a flood that covered the 'whole world'    ?   :huh:

 

I was intentionally giving the (mostly) interesting discussion so far some room to unfold before I was going to introduce new material. As a matter of fact, I was told that the information contained at least in my earlier posts was pretty dense, and I was asked to slow down.

 

A brief summary seems like a good idea. Thanks, mate!

 

Summary

 

Insofar it pertains to the topic, up to now:

  • we were looking at the time frame suggested by Plato, how it ties in with end of the last ice age, and the plausibility of that;
  • we determined how big we should expect the Atlantic Island to have have been;
  • we started discussing some possible locations for the Atlanteran civilization, including some that seem to digress from Plato's descriptions at first, but may tie in with the Atlantean colonies that he hints at;
  • we looked at the hypothesis of an Atlantean influence on the glacial Magdalenian culture;
  • we considered why and in what ways the Atlantean civilization may have advanced beyond any other at the time and what the indications of that were - which took us a bit off-topic into Egyptian masonry.

And now it seems necessary to introduce new material to keep this topic going into the intended direction, and to open up at least one spin-off thread real quick for dealing with the 'Egyptian connection'.

 

Stay tuned for that, please...

 

Oh, and I used 'deluge' in the header as a poetic way to refer to the submergence of Atlantis. And yes, this may tie in with both the 'Biblical flood' and the global rise of sea levels at the beginning of the current inter-glacial period.

 

I think it's a good idea if I next give you an outline of what in particular I still wish to cover in this current thread.

 

Edited by Michael Sternbach
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

I meant to get back to you on this 30 years to build the Great Pyramid  'thing' and the 'impossible' rate of block finishing per day, according to the numbers . You might find this interesting ;

 

https://ashtronort.wordpress.com/the-great-pyramid-of-giza-20-years-to-build/

 

 

We also need to think about it being a seasonal project as well, at least parts of  it.  Most stone came via the Nile, whose levels  and currents fluctuated  greatly .    So it may not have been 'year round work' .

 

What says Apech on the time it took to build TGP  ? 

 

 

 

 

Nothing basically.  I have never been interested in the engineering side of Egyptology and never given it more than cursory thought.  I am more interested in why they built it, what it was for and what it meant to them - than the how, which I leave to others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

.... errrhm ... doesnt matter .

 

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

All of that may indeed have a meaning...

 

Of course it has a meaning !

 

 

Quote

 

 

...although it is probably not to be taken literally.

 

That said, I would not dismiss any ideas regarding human contact with aliens (be in times ancient or modern) a priori. E.g., many American Indian tribes have legends about 'star people'. However, that's a different discussion, and from my perspective, we can treat the 'lost civilization' topic quite apart from it.

 

 

Yeah, it is neither necessary nor even possible to be fussy in a thread like this. My idea for it, however, is to use Plato's hypothesis as our primary frame of reference.

 

 

Well, much as with aliens, you seem to have decided that magic (at least the kind that seemingly defies the laws of physics), dragons and flying horses are BS - whereas these and many other things for which there is little objective proof in some way constitute very much a part of the world that I am living in. We can simply agree to disagree here, though.

 

All sorts of things constitute my life as well. but I dont allow them to intrude into something I am trying to factually investigate .

 

I assume we are coming from very different places  here .

 

Quote

 

 

I remain sceptical regarding the conclusiveness of what you presented so far even factoring in the vast workforce supposedly available to a pharaoh - but as I said, I am looking forward to more of your material once we are going to talk specifically about the idea of our lost civilization's influence on Egypt. Expect me to start that proposed thread on this any moment now, as this one is going more and more off the rails.

 

 That is why I keep suggesting we focus on thread title / subject

Quote

 

 

Alright, let's leave all that for the dedicated topic.

 

 

This is nothing but ridicule - best to be ignored.

 

 

Yes, considerations regarding how Magdalenian culture may tie in with Plato's Atlantis do belong here.

 

 

Here goes:

 

img20190312_07452848.thumb.jpg.9aff2f691f70601e78f09769347dfed9.jpg

 

These are Magdalenian engravings from (a) St. Michel d' Arudy, (b) Grotte de Marsoulas, (c) La Marche. (Illustration scanned from M. Settegast: Plato Prehistorian, p. 27.)

 

( a note on M. Settegast:  " ... she doesn't seek to identify Atlantis as a real place, and questions the existence of the island, but instead identifies the culture on Atlantis described by Plato with Magdalenian culture (17,000 – 12,000 BP) of the Lascaux cave art. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Settegast 

 

... I am still confused why it is thought a culture with a navy that invaded  Athens , on the one hand , is considered the culture that made better cave art and stone arrow and spear points  ? ? ? )

 

These are obvious non- original depictions .   (a )   is well known 

 

img_7945horsehead.jpg

 

 

and has been a source of debate for years ... it needs to be compared to the horses that where around THEN 

 

Here is a variant description ;

 

" Carving of a horse head from Saint-Michel d'Arudy, France, showing facial lines that indicate the line demarcating the mealy muzzle and the natural contours ... "

 

Its an old argument and not backed up , even though 'your guys'  disagree with consensus view ... which I should point draws from  a wide range and variety of sources to build a larger picture ... not just occasional one of  re interpreted pieces that are given enough validity to change the big picture .  The argument also included some cases f found bridles and mouth pieces ... these have since been explained ... so now they are not included in the 'evidence' any more .

 

I cant find the originals of (b) and (c)  , I have looked pretty extensively ... image (a) came up straight away .

 

(Now, you might think I am being .snarky here, but I have learnt not to trust such reproduced images, some I have busted for being entirely faked. Which is why I no longer give such things automatic validity but prefer to investigate them .  )

 

But I did find a book that uses image a as you suggest and it goes on to claim Magdalenian  as influenced by Atlantis ... perhaps the original source for the book you are reading  and where Handcock got it from ?  Its about how humans have been on earth for millions of years .

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eFkoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=Magdalenian+horse+and+atlantis&source=bl&ots=MZVOPDKKXy&sig=ACfU3U1GYRM6Pv8z_UnQwdprcCifKx2z2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHgbOtyf3gAhUO6XMBHV5sBfQQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Magdalenian horse and atlantis&f=false

 

Before Atlantis: 20 Million Years of Human and Pre-Human Cultures

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eFkoDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Before+Atlantis:+20+Million+Years+of+Human+and+Pre-Human+Cultures+magdalena+horse+bridles&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6_byKyv3gAhWMrY8KHbCuBzgQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

It shows the same three pictures of the horses exactly as yours does above .

 

Quote

 

I somehow doubt that you will find this really convincing (and won't be losing any sleep over it, TBH), however, the book text accompanying these pictures says:

 

 

 

 

 

I was talking about this post which you neglected to comment on so far.

 

I had a much longer post done with references to all the above and links , but then I clicked on the blue bit above and .... gone !  Didnt come back either .

 

There is a LOT in that post,   Do you want me to comment on all the issues there and get further away from the title subject ? 

 

... I managed to salvage  some links  on horse bridles

 

https://www.donsmaps.com/hoax.html

 

http://rockartblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/paleolithic-horse-domestication.html

 

Paul Bahn seems to be the one mostly responsible. his other 'proofs' have since been explained ... here is an academic view

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ystMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=Paul+Bahn,+horse+domestication&source=bl&ots=Ot-LUrHMWU&sig=ACfU3U0sLn7s0MYSeSnMh30hTNPAz-0COA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw--G93v3gAhVY8HMBHTF8BwIQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Paul Bahn%2C horse domestication&f=false

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.3.2019 at 10:49 PM, Nungali said:

 

Of course it has a meaning !

 

 

 

All sorts of things constitute my life as well. but I dont allow them to intrude into something I am trying to factually investigate .

 

I assume we are coming from very different places  here .

 

Especially in regards to what we accept as factual. Let me see...

 

I come from a place of (alright, what I consider to be) inner knowledge, and I am intrigued to find evidence that is in line with my intuitions. Not that I wouldn't trust them... But it helps me fill in the blanks and also to demonstrate to others what I basically knew all along.

 

Quote

 

 That is why I keep suggesting we focus on thread title / subject

 

 

Thanks, so do I. As elaborated on in my OP.

 

Quote

( a note on M. Settegast:  " ... she doesn't seek to identify Atlantis as a real place, and questions the existence of the island, but instead identifies the culture on Atlantis described by Plato with Magdalenian culture (17,000 – 12,000 BP) of the Lascaux cave art. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Settegast 

 

... I am still confused why it is thought a culture with a navy that invaded  Athens , on the one hand , is considered the culture that made better cave art and stone arrow and spear points  ? ? ? )

 

That Wikipedia article is crap. M. Settegast doesn't deny the reality of Plato's Atlantis, and most certainly she doesn't equate it with Magdalenian culture. She just writes she doesn't know how its existence can be explained in spite of lacking geological evidence, although her book presents plenty of archaeological/historical evidence for it.

 

Funnily enough, N. Zhirov (whose book I repeatedly mentioned above) says exactly the opposite: He presents geological evidence for the existence of the Atlantic Island, but says he is not aware of any historical facts that would back up the myth.

 

Quote

These are obvious non- original depictions .   (a )   is well known 

 

img_7945horsehead.jpg

 

 

and has been a source of debate for years ... it needs to be compared to the horses that where around THEN 

 

Here is a variant description ;

 

" Carving of a horse head from Saint-Michel d'Arudy, France, showing facial lines that indicate the line demarcating the mealy muzzle and the natural contours ... "

 

Its an old argument and not backed up , even though 'your guys'  disagree with consensus view ... which I should point draws from  a wide range and variety of sources to build a larger picture ... not just occasional one of  re interpreted pieces that are given enough validity to change the big picture .  The argument also included some cases f found bridles and mouth pieces ... these have since been explained ... so now they are not included in the 'evidence' any more .

 

Oh, I see: They "have been explained" - I suppose by "authorities" in the field?! Wow, fantastic!

 

File closed. And no danger that any textbooks would ever have to be rewritten! Phew...

 

Quote

I cant find the originals of (b) and (c)  , I have looked pretty extensively ... image (a) came up straight away .

 

(Now, you might think I am being .snarky here, but I have learnt not to trust such reproduced images, some I have busted for being entirely faked. Which is why I no longer give such things automatic validity but prefer to investigate them .  )

 

Oh great! Mr. Nungers can't find the 'originals', therefore the images in the book of M. Settegast (a well-reputed scholar) are likely faked...

 

Quote

But I did find a book that uses image a as you suggest and it goes on to claim Magdalenian  as influenced by Atlantis ... perhaps the original source for the book you are reading  and where Handcock got it from ?  Its about how humans have been on earth for millions of years .

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eFkoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=Magdalenian+horse+and+atlantis&source=bl&ots=MZVOPDKKXy&sig=ACfU3U1GYRM6Pv8z_UnQwdprcCifKx2z2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHgbOtyf3gAhUO6XMBHV5sBfQQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Magdalenian horse and atlantis&f=false

 

The caves mentioned are in different locations (and it seems like the pictures are not even shown). And how does Hancock (not "Handcock") suddenly come into play? :huh:

 

Maybe suggesting you should be medicated while writing your posts wasn't such a good idea after all... :unsure:

 

Quote

 

Uhm, I hate to break it to you, but this link just shows the cover image of the book, with no horses in sight whatsoever.

 

Quote

 

I had a much longer post done with references to all the above and links , but then I clicked on the blue bit above and .... gone !  Didnt come back either .

 

There is a LOT in that post,   Do you want me to comment on all the issues there and get further away from the title subject ? 

 

I don't see that post as seriously deviating from this thread's subject as stated.

 

For your convenience, once again, here it is...

 

 

Quote

 

Some of this is quite interesting. Thanks.

 

So I gather that the question of paleolithic horse domestication is being debated. Like most of the topics touched on in this thread...

Edited by Michael Sternbach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.3.2019 at 9:47 AM, Michael Sternbach said:

I think it's a good idea if I next give you an outline of what in particular I still wish to cover in this current thread.

 

  • The structure of the Atlantic Island and its capital.
  • Indications of the esoteric knowledge possessed by the Atlanteans.
  • Some more about the possible location of Atlantis. (Especially Zhirov's book contains alot of material pertinent to that and processing it takes a bit...)
  • Some more also about the prehistoric world at large that Atlantis existed in and that Plato to some degree includes in his description.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Especially in regards to what we accept as factual. Let me see...

 

I come from a place of (alright, what I consider to be) inner knowledge, and I am intrigued to find evidence that is in line with my intuitions. Not that I wouldn't trust them... But it helps me fill in the blanks and also to demonstrate to others what I basically knew all along.

 

I see .    ' Inner knowledge '  is it ?  or did  your mind  just get influenced by certain subjects, readings and people.

 

This is about demonstrating  to others what you knew all along  from your 'inner knowledge ' ?     

 

Actually, that sorta surprised me coming from you .   Surely you understand where that leads to ?

 

I suppose that is why you get reactive when I criticise  things you come up with , maybe you feel the demonstration of your inner knowledge  to others and  what you intuitively knew all along is being criticised ?

 

As I said , we are coming from VERY different places on this .

 

Maybe I should retire  from such debates ... it isnt my trip at all and  NOT at all where I am coming from. I am absolute NOT claiming any inner knowledge on this and have no desire whatsoever  to demonstrate to other readers that the information I am putting here comes from 'what I knew all along' .    believe it or not , I am still learning ... I just have learnt to be cautious about sources .

 

Really ...have a read of that preface in the  Egyptian history book you have but have not read yet ;  about  'evidence based research' .

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Thanks, so do I. As elaborated on in my OP.

 

 

That Wikipedia article is crap. M. Settegast doesn't deny the reality of Plato's Atlantis, and most certainly she doesn't equate it with Magdalenian culture. She just writes she doesn't know how its existence can be explained in spite of lacking geological evidence, although her book presents plenty of archaeological/historical evidence for it.

 

Funnily enough, N. Zhirov (whose book I repeatedly mentioned above) says exactly the opposite: He presents geological evidence for the existence of the Atlantic Island, but says he is not aware of any historical facts that would back up the myth.

 

Cant wait until we get to the 'geological evidence' !    

 

Geology is  one of my  favourite  subjects too !  :)

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Oh, I see: They "have been explained" - I suppose by "authorities" in the field?! Wow, fantastic!

 

The explanation   was developed by examining evidence in multiple fields,  Not by just looking at a horse head carving and thinking they had bridles on ,  or did not  .

 

I also realise that  'authorities in the field' are  often bugbears  for those that have special 'inner knowledge '  , that funnily enough often disagrees with other evidence, the wider picture and 'authorities in the field' .  

 

Maybe its a conspiracy and a cover up the  historians    and  archaeologists are in on     B)

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

File closed. And no danger that any textbooks would ever have to be rewritten! Phew...

 

 

Oh great! Mr. Nungers can't find the 'originals', therefore the images in the book of M. Settegast (a well-reputed scholar) are likely faked...

 

Well, my 'inner knowledge' told me they where  .

 

:D 

 

And by the way, that  ^  is  your 'therefore' not mine , I didnt say that ,  what I said was  .... well,   what I said .

 

 

I found the first image easily,  I am familiar with a whole range of horse images from that cave art and didn't recognise it . In searching I found a few more I am not familiar with ,   but  not ( b )  and   ( c .)   One would think if they where so unusual and did denote such an unusual thing they might be easier to find and a lot would be written about them, like image (a)

 

 I wanted to find them to do a further examination on them (instead of just accepting  things at face value )  and see the history of their interpretations , just like I did with image  (a ) .  That threw up a whole LOT of history, a varied interpretation and an explanation, of what they represent .

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

The caves mentioned are in different locations (and it seems like the pictures are not even shown). And how does Hancock (not "Handcock") suddenly come into play? :huh:

 

Maybe suggesting you should be medicated while writing your posts wasn't such a good idea after all... :unsure:

 

Well, I did think I would just forget it, the lost post was very annoying ,   in that, you would click on that link and be taken to that book and it had the same 3 images of the horses on the page that it opened up on,  I tried to salvage that  but messed it up .

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Uhm, I hate to break it to you, but this link just shows the cover image of the book, with no horses in sight whatsoever.

 

I hate to break it to you , but if you click and drag down on the side bar  .......    the rest of the book comes into view !   .... MAGIC ! 

 

It was set on the  pages with the three same images , but I lost the 'mark' ( that specific page in the address link) ,  but  it is in there  (see  my above comment  about losing post)

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

I don't see that post as seriously deviating from this thread's subject as stated.

 

For your convenience, once again, here it is...

 

 

 

Some of this is quite interesting. Thanks.

 

IMO it is good to look at the development and history of an idea or theory, not just the opposing views.

 

 

12 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So I gather that the question of paleolithic horse domestication is being debated. Like most of the topics touched on in this thread...

 

The  question of Palaeolithic horse domestication has always been debated since the  first evidence against the idea arose . 

 

It is far from settled, this idea   that Palaeolithic  people domesticated horses , hunted  them, yes, the evidence seems to show that clearly, but it does not show domestication. What IS shown is some curious horse  depictions that can be explained otherwise  - so its at least inconclusive .

 

But carry on, lets say for the sake of this  discussion that they did ..   I am curious to see how this  pans out .

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys, this is turning into the Nungali vs. Micheal thread.  You come from different perspectives ... good!  As long as we share opinions openly what's the problem?

 

If I was investigating this subject I would take the minimalist approach, in other words what are the least key facts you would have to substantiate to advance the Atlantis idea.  For me these would be:

 

1.  a pre Ice Age culture/civilisation which was destroyed by advancing sea levels (cataclysmically).

2.  a knowledge of at least advance stone working and megalith structures

3.  some knowledge of astronomy (observations over long periods of time)

4.  ability to plan and execute large scale architecture

 

Problems:

 

1.  500,000 years of last ice ages had erratic climatic conditions - what kind of culture could survive this

blog4_temp.thumb.png.d56cc9df38930229dace7644fcb74b4b.png

 

 

 

2.  no evidence of agriculture pre around 6000 BC (?) so what food source?

3.  if Atlantis was destroyed around 10,000 BC then presumably they went to Anatolia and taught the Gobekli Tepe hunter gatherers to build ... but then what?

4.  if you back date the GP to 10,000 BC then what did they do between then and the dynastic period?  how do you explain pre-dynastic cultures (primitive)

5.  Genetic science has mapped modern human genetic ancestry without any Atlantean involvement - how is this explained?

6.  Nothing from archeology/fossil record suggest Atlantean involvement (as far as I know)

 

Possible

 

1.  the idea of Atlantis is actually a 'memory' of early neolithic (or even mesolithic) cultures which were far more sophisticated and complex than is generally understood - coastal dwelling hunter gatherer megalith builders.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Apech said:

Come on guys, this is turning into the Nungali vs. Micheal thread.  You come from different perspectives ... good!  As long as we share opinions openly what's the problem?

 

If I was investigating this subject I would take the minimalist approach, in other words what are the least key facts you would have to substantiate to advance the Atlantis idea.  For me these would be:

 

1.  a pre Ice Age culture/civilisation which was destroyed by advancing sea levels (cataclysmically).

2.  a knowledge of at least advance stone working and megalith structures

3.  some knowledge of astronomy (observations over long periods of time)

4.  ability to plan and execute large scale architecture

 

So far so good , the technology just has to be advanced over that of Plato's time.

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago." if this is correct then they wouldn't likely be pre-ice age , and since modern humans potentially only go back to 200000 ya 

Quote

Problems:

 

1.  500,000 years of last ice ages had erratic climatic conditions - what kind of culture could survive this

blog4_temp.thumb.png.d56cc9df38930229dace7644fcb74b4b.png

 

 

 

2.  no evidence of agriculture pre around 6000 BC (?) so what food source?

Mostly seafood. Settles all those issues. 

 

Quote

3.  if Atlantis was destroyed around 10,000 BC then presumably they went to Anatolia and taught the Gobekli Tepe hunter gatherers to build ... but then what?

Gobekli is dated at a max of about 10000ya so the last Atlantans could have washed up there, but they didnt have the proper immune functions. 

Quote

4.  if you back date the GP to 10,000 BC then what did they do between then and the dynastic period?  how do you explain pre-dynastic cultures (primitive)

If Plato's Atlantis was defeated by Athens , and Athens dates maybe 600BC . Then Atlantis couldn't have been destroyed by the advancing sea levels which peaked 10000 yrs ago. They would have been underwater for 9400  years. 

Quote

5.  Genetic science has mapped modern human genetic ancestry without any Atlantean involvement - how is this explained?

6.  Nothing from archeology/fossil record suggest Atlantean involvement (as far as I know)

The scientific record is replete with blanks . 

 

Quote

Possible

 

1.  the idea of Atlantis is actually a 'memory' of early neolithic (or even mesolithic) cultures which were far more sophisticated and complex than is generally understood - coastal dwelling hunter gatherer megalith builders.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

So far so good , the technology just has to be advanced over that of Plato's time.

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago." if this is correct then they wouldn't likely be pre-ice age , and since modern humans potentially only go back to 200000 ya 

 

Yes sorry I was a bit vague - but if they were destroyed at the end of the last ice age they must have lived during it.

 

34 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Mostly seafood. Settles all those issues. 

 

Well yes in a way, but the lack of fixed land for agriculture means they would be migratory like early neolithic and mesolithic peoples were.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

Gobekli is dated at a max of about 10000ya so the last Atlantans could have washed up there, but they didnt have the proper immune functions. 

 

What? They were wiped out by disease?

 

34 minutes ago, Stosh said:

If Plato's Atlantis was defeated by Athens , and Athens dates maybe 600BC . Then Atlantis couldn't have been destroyed by the advancing sea levels which peaked 10000 yrs ago. They would have been underwater for 9400  years. 

 

Good point - but its a critique of Plato's narrative rather than the general idea.

 

34 minutes ago, Stosh said:

The scientific record is replete with blanks . 

 

 

 

The recent work on the human genome is fairly extensive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes sorry I was a bit vague - but if they were destroyed at the end of the last ice age they must have lived during it.

 

Agreed, I , didn't say my thing well either,  what I was getting at , is that we are either dealing with an Atlantean ice age culture that was flooded out by the rising sea-waters (10-11700ya), OR , we are dealing with an Atlantis that was defeated by the Athenians and visited thousands of years later,(maybe 800ya).  But not both, because if they were flooded out , then they were not defeated by Atheninans. 

 

Well yes in a way, but the lack of fixed land for agriculture means they would be migratory like early neolithic and mesolithic peoples were.

 

Possibly true ,based on food from the sea or the land  , but then there's the issue of having advanced architecture , harbors etc, and so they would have to be envisioned as fishing at sea but building at a fixed location,and perhaps harvesting without planting. 

 

What? They were wiped out by disease?

 

The difference in susceptibility of people coming from remote lands , and even more so vs those who come from centrally located ( crossroads), to diseases, is big.  

Look at the effect of Europeans on the New World populations. ( compared to the effect of the diseases they brought back with them to Europe) ( or the plague on Europe from China) If we postulate that the Atlanteans were just above the development of Greece then we don't have to assume they had antivirals and so forth. 

 

Good point - but its a critique of Plato's narrative rather than the general idea.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at. 

 

The recent work on the human genome is fairly extensive.  

 

That can be fairly said , but anything they find has to be integrated with population dynamics , and even in the next few years there will be plenty of new fodder . Only recently has the genetic paradigm for humans shifted from the outmoded tree idea , and into a sort of flowing organic milieu, with crossbreeding of archaics and moderns . 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stosh said:


 

Good point - but its a critique of Plato's narrative rather than the general idea.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at. 

 

 

 

Plato used the Atlantis story to write a critique of society and government.  I think it is likely that as an Athenian he would characterise the Atlanteans as being city dwellers and so on.  But it is possible that he only had a sketchy idea of what they were like or how they lived.  He may have invented the war with the Atlanteans as part of his narrative rather than a received historical fact.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Plato used the Atlantis story to write a critique of society and government.  I think it is likely that as an Athenian he would characterise the Atlanteans as being city dwellers and so on.  But it is possible that he only had a sketchy idea of what they were like or how they lived.  He may have invented the war with the Atlanteans as part of his narrative rather than a received historical fact.  

I see, then would it not be prudent to toss out all of his account, until it can be shown that the Ice Atlanteans existed?

That would require us to circumscribe a people who may have lived anywhere ,done anything ,and existed for an indeterminate time🙂

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apech said:

Come on guys, this is turning into the Nungali vs. Micheal thread.  You come from different perspectives ... good!  As long as we share opinions openly what's the problem?

 

 

The 'problem' seems to be   that I am coming from a research position with nothing to prove  and Michael is coming from a position of  trying to demonstrate to others what he basically knew all along from his own  'inner knowledge ' .

 

I think that is rather  'problematical' .

 

Anywayz , moving along ;

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

If I was investigating this subject I would take the minimalist approach, in other words what are the least key facts you would have to substantiate to advance the Atlantis idea.  For me these would be:

 

1.  a pre Ice Age culture/civilisation which was destroyed by advancing sea levels (cataclysmically).

 

Atlantis of course .  But that has yet to be shown .

 

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

2.  a knowledge of at least advance stone working and megalith structures

 

The usual answer is ; all that advanced stone work that was done later must have come from somewhere . ...   Atlantis of course .

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

3.  some knowledge of astronomy (observations over long periods of time)

4.  ability to plan and execute large scale architecture

 

It all got sunk ... along with the evidence .

 

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Problems:

 

1.  500,000 years of last ice ages had erratic climatic conditions - what kind of culture could survive this

blog4_temp.thumb.png.d56cc9df38930229dace7644fcb74b4b.png

 

 

The type that went across the ice and sea to the  Americas

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

2.  no evidence of agriculture pre around 6000 BC (?) so what food source?

 

Heaps !   Look at the feast evidence from places like Orkney and Gobelki Tepe  ;   HUGE amounts of cattle bones all eaten at once in mega feats ... later genetic analysis revealed they where all from one herd . keeping and tending   cattle ;  herding  seems to have developed before animal husbandry  (whose definition is related to agriculture and farming ) .

 

 

" ...these bones are the remains of wild animals that
were hunted and brought to the mound to feed the
people staying there. The hunters targeted a wide
variety of animals native to the region including
 large game such as aurochs, red deer, onagers,
and wild boar, as well as small game such as fox,
hare, and wild fowl (chukar partridges, doves, and
ducks). In terms of numbers, gazelles were the pre-
ferred game species, but in terms of meat provision,
wild cattle (aurochs) ranked first, providing up to
50% of the meat consumed at the site
 
 
 
 

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

3.  if Atlantis was destroyed around 10,000 BC then presumably they went to Anatolia and taught the Gobekli Tepe hunter gatherers to build ... but then what?

 

They just hung around for  7000 years then invaded   Athens

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

4.  if you back date the GP to 10,000 BC then what did they do between then and the dynastic period?  how do you explain pre-dynastic cultures (primitive)

 

:)     That's why I keep suggesting

 

 

 

13726806.jpg

 

Also, one might think that the later Egyptian stonework, that shows organic forms *  just might be a representation of the buildings and temples and shrines that where originally made of those organic ( and hard to preserve in the  archaeological record) forms

 

*   fluted stone columns carved that look like bundles of reeds together,   surfaces carved to look like woven reed mats, lintels carved to look like palm trunks, etc .

 

Pre-Dynastic Egypt  is not a very pop subject .... compared to the Pyramid Age , so many people do not know much about it .

 

Here is a good starter   (and has the good preface for 'Evidence based research '  )

 

51k-w1WKdxL._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

2 hours ago, Apech said:

5.  Genetic science has mapped modern human genetic ancestry without any Atlantean involvement - how is this explained?

 

Graham Handcock has published stuff to say it wasnt actually Atlantians that passed on advanced civilisation and technology to us ... it was the Denisovans .   ... because now we do have some genetic evidence for that .

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

6.  Nothing from archeology/fossil record suggest Atlantean involvement (as far as I know)

 

Then, expect to be flooded by pics of 'impossible'   and 'unexplained' technology from the ancient world        ;)

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Possible

 

1.  the idea of Atlantis is actually a 'memory' of early neolithic (or even mesolithic) cultures which were far more sophisticated and complex than is generally understood - coastal dwelling hunter gatherer megalith builders.

 

 

 

 

The more we find out through new finds and research the more we realise how  sophisticated and complex it was .

 

This is VERY much the case in Australia over the last few decades and is only now just starting to get into public consciousness.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I see, then would it not be prudent to toss out all of his account, until it can be shown that the Ice Atlanteans existed?

That would require us to circumscribe a people who may have lived anywhere ,done anything ,and existed for an indeterminate time🙂

 

In this thread we are going on Plato's accounts . remember .

 

Unless we need to change 'one or two minor  details'   to suit our narrative     

 

 

 

 

tenor.gif?itemid=5890397

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites