Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Atlantis.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Friday, 14th August 2009
You fellows have probably had this subject on your table many times before...
Is it possible that between 15000-8000 bc that there was an ancient civilization lost in Antartica during the colapsing chaos of the ice age .
Thanks -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 14th August 2009
Hi Zerafim,
To be honest it's not likely. Antarctica has been thickly covered in ice for millions of years, not thousands. Plate tectonics will ensure that Antarctica will once be tropical again, just as it was at the end of the Cretaceous period.
The next question of course is were there ancient civilizations in 15,000 BC anywhere? Now this is a subject that we've had many times before. I'm a disbeliever I have to say.
TP -
Message 3
Posted by beebfan2 (U14104526) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
I am not sure about the Antarctica issue but I do know that the theory of Atlantis is derived from one of Plato's works that only exists as a fragment and that Plato claims the story of Atlantis in written form had been preserved in Egypt based in what Plato wrote.
-
Message 4
Posted by i love champagne (U13909634) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
what do you think? I can belive there was.
-
Message 5
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 16th August 2009
To be precise, Plato claimed Egyptian priests had told the story to the famous Athenian law-maker Solon. After he gave the city his laws, Solon had sworn the Athenians not to change the laws within ten years, and he himself had left the country to travel so he could not be put under pressure to change them himself. In his travels, Solon presumably visited Egypt, and the priests demonstrated their knowledge of history and the antiquity of their records, by telling Solon a story from Athens' own, forgotten, past.
Solon had lived over a century before Plato: The philosopher claimed in his writings that the story of Atlantis had been passed down over several generations to Critias, after whom one of Plato's dialogues is named. However, if this is true, then the story was certainly not widely known, as Plato is the only source for it.
Much more likely is that Plato just used the reference to Solon as a literary device: The attribution of the story is completely unverifiable, but Solon was one of the most respected men in Greek history, and besides mentioning him was entirely appropriate in a discussion of the ideal structure of the state. Especially when Athens is more or less claimed to have been that state.
For in the end, Plato's story of Atlantis boils down to a celebration of Athens: The Athenians, according to the account in Timeaus, had resisted the armies of Atlantis when the latter had become greedy imperialists, and had finally defeated them before Atlantis itself was destroyed. One of the problems with that is, of course, that it claims Athens was a significant city in 9000 BC, which it wasn't. -
Message 6
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 17th August 2009
I'm sure the explosion of Thera gave rise to enough legends and 'Anger of the Gods' tales to fund a thousand years of storytellers.
With any twist or distortion you fancied put on the facts. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Hmmm actually the eruption of Thera can not be directly related to any specific Greek myth (I am trying to remember any having direct relation... maybe I just forget something). Interestingly enough it was hardly remembered by post-Mycenaean cultures, probably due to the destruction that followed and of course Dorian effect - Dorians were Macedonians who came from their ancestal lands in the mountainous regions of western Macedonia thus really not so touched by that catastrophe, thus did not care much of remembering it. Mind you, the mainland seems to be hardly touched as Mycynaean cultures seem to continuously and ininterruptedly develop no matter if the horrible erthquakes that came along with the eruption must had destroyed the buildings pre-Mycynaean era cities - but at the end great earthquakes were and are breakfast for Greeks who simply kept rebuilding their cities. It seems that the eruption was so strong that all the material did not fell in the Aegean area but went to upper atmospheric levels and then being dispersed to practically most parts of the globe (we find things even in the arctics). In the absence of even other Aegean islands great catastrophes, it has been suggested that the heavier volcanic material that remained in the Aegean area has touched Crete (it is assumed that winds were north, thus heading towards the south and the island of Crete while there is no other island inbetween Thera and Crete) but then even that is still under discussion as there is no proof that Cretans' downfall came from the volcanic material. In fact there are equally plausible theories about Cretans suffering more from earthquakes and soil movements that changed the sources of water. Taking for granted that their commercial centers and cities were highly evolved and depended on public works for water, it might be that on the one hand their cities were destroyed and on the other, they had no water so there was really no point in rebuilding them on the same site. The latter should mean lack of investement and should have as an effect the gradual economic downfall of the island as on the one hand there would be less commerce (and international commerce) and of course less local production of food... anyway... a whole chain of parameters.... thus a situation far more complex than a simple destruction by the volcano.
However, the link of Atlantis with Thera, a theory first developed by Greek archaiologist Marinatos who excavated Thera in the 1930s is not well-founded and remaines only as a vague suggestion. There is nothing in the myth that makes a link to the Aegean. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Tsunamis also are not enough to explain the destruction. Cretans had their cities up in the hills and in the inner land, so they would not be so touched even by 50m tsunamis. Even if their ports were totally destroyed (and 30m waves would indeed totally destory them), they could still rebuild them. Afterall they had always their ports in the south of the island.
Anyway, one has to go really into the story. For me it is a story not a myth, inspite of the mythological gods' references, even if finally it is proved a false.
Mutatis has presented it well (though somehow I disagree with his conclusion). Atlantis was not a Greek story but an Egyptian one, thus it is not strange that we find it only in 1 text, that of Plato. Solon had heard the story in the city of Sais while touring Egypt and told the story orally to Athenians but himself had copied it in text form fro the Egyptian text... well not everyone but mainly his family and friends. It is not accidental that not only Kritias - who narrates the story to Socrates and company - is a 4th generation descendant of Solon fro father side but even Plato himself is a descendant from his mother side... explaining of course why Plato remembered details of the story even if he wrote the text at least several years (some say more than 30 years) after that discussion took place (of course taking notes aids but then Plato claimed a good memory too!). It is more than certain that Plato would be in knowledge of the story.
In fact if you read carefully the text you will understand that normally the story does not fit the text as it explains absolutely nothing in relation to the issue of the "ideal governance". It seems that even during that night, Kritias' embedded story disoriented the discussion and that we see in Socrates ending comment, something like (if I remember correctly): "Yes Kritias, we cannot find any better example for good governance since this is what the Gods indicate" and right after he changes the discussion to go back to the issue.....i.e. in other words... "yeah right Kritias, nice story, but spare us the myths, we have no time for that when we speak about such an issue"... It seems that Socrates treated the story as most of us do, simply as an interesting myth but nothing more.
But then why does Plato imbeds the story in his text? His aim was to write on the ideal governance not about old myths... Well it seems he cannot resist a good story or... he ust wanted to copy word for word the evolution of that discussion. I do not think that Plato took the initiative to make out his own story given the fact that he talks about real people, his own relatives and friends, and very respectable ones and well known in Athens (let alone invent a story and put it in the mouth of venerable... Solon... no way!).
So, the story is real (i.e. Solon must had heard it in Egypt) and most probably it was discussed as an imbedded story in the discussion on ideal governance that night.
From there on it is up to anyone to make it out. It was explained (within the story) that Solon had copied the Egyptian text and translated it simultaneously by also translating the names of heros and Gods for the Greek equivalent (thus you see mythological names like Poseidon etc.). But the references he makes bear no resemblance to Aegean. Beyond Hercules Columns, there is an ocean and in that Ocean a big island (bigger than Libya and Asia together - well we do not know to what he refers here as Africa and Asia were considered much smaller by Greeks anyway), and west of that there are many other smaller islands and west of that there is a huge continent...
The description cannot be more clear than that. ALl the setting is the Atlantic with its Gibraltar, Carribean islands and the Americas... the only missing bit is the big island west of Spain.
A French geologist claims to have found remains of small shallow islands in the mouth of Gibraltar (where the myth mentioned the east side of the all the complex of islands of Atlantis was!) but he said these were really small ones. But he dated them around 8000, thus 3000 years after the cataclysm. Interesting. Because the myth mentions exactly that: After the sinking of the huge island the sea became muddy and unavigable and people just stopped sailing there (and thus forgot)...
Who knows? There is still a lot to it... -
Message 9
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Thanks to all who responded to this post.
Your comments have stimulated other ideas for me.
Seems that if Atlantis did exist then it does not make sense that it could of just disappeared from present day technological searches. The oceans of Earth show no hidden land mass , as required for such a huge civilization, so it is easy for me to say that Atlantis could not of been swallowed up by any Seas. but...there does seem to be evidence that could suggest that a land mass, big enough to support a large "Atlantean" type civilization, did exist under the Antarctic ice.{within the time frame mentioned in my opening post}
This suggestion does go against the grain of most of your views, and though this is a worry to me, it does not deter me from "supposing", for now, that if Atlantis existed then it could, and maybe did, exist somewhere under that Ice.
Zerafim -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Hi Zerafim,
"there does seem to be evidence that could suggest that a land mass, big enough to support a large "Atlantean" type civilization, did exist under the Antarctic ice" Μύ
Could you tell us what this evidence is?
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 21st August 2009
but...there does seem to be evidence that could suggest that a land mass, big enough to support a large "Atlantean" type civilization, did exist under the Antarctic iceΜύ
I'm very surprised to read that. Considering that the ice in the Antarctic is 100s of metres thick and ice core samples taken from the ice pack show ice being there for at least 400,000 years (look up "Vostok ice core"), and those cores haven't gone to the bottom of the ice pack.
I really cannot see how a civilisation could have existed in Antarctica when there is no evidence of the climate being sufficiently warm enough in the very short time frames that you're talking about, not to mention the geographical isolation of the continent.
Question - how can a civilisation exist in a climate so severe that no crops grow, no wild animals can exist in sufficient numbers to sustain a human population, and where there has been a huge ice pack for millenia, possibly millions of years? And even if the climate was warmer than it actually has been for millenia, the lack of sunlight for six months of the year would make it impossible for large populations to be sustained - you only need look at the Inuit and other populations in the extreme latitudes in the northern hemisphere to see that large population sizes cannot be sustained. Quite simply, such an ecosystem could support permanent human habitation.
So what evidence do you talk about?
...but...there does seem to be evidence that could suggest that a land mass, big enough to support a large "Atlantean" type civilization, did exist under the Antarctic ice....Μύ -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Quite simply, such an ecosystem could support permanent human habitation.
Μύ
Oops, that should read
Quite simply, such an ecosystem could NOT support permanent human habitation.
Μύ -
Message 13
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Friday, 21st August 2009
One wonders whether some of the scrolls in the Great Library of Alexandria made any mention of the legend. Everlasting conjecture!
-
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Even if there was an ancient civilisation in Antarctica, which sems extremely unlikely, how would the Egyptians have known about them?
Th emost plausible theiry I hav eread about Atlantis is Eberhard Zangger's "Flood from Heaven". In this detailed examination of the story, he comes up with the theory that th elegend of Atlantis is acually th elegend of the Trojan War, but told from th epoint of view of the Egyptians. Yes, I know, it sounds far fetched at first, not leat because Troy did not sink beneath the waves, but if you read the book, I am sure you willl find that he addresses the story in a very detaile dway. As far as I recall, the text does not say that Atlantis sank, it says that th eflood cam edown from heaven, creatng deluge sinGreece. That the Greeks fought against a mighty army and that, after Atlantis disapeared, the seas became impassable. Zangger's hypothesis is that this was because teh Trojans had a monopoly on piloting ships through the Dardanelles. When Troy was destroyed, no more pilots, hence no more travel.
There is not enough room here to go into all the details and I can already hear you all crying that Troy was in Asia, not on an island in the Atlantic. Suffice to say, Zangger does spend a lot of time explaining how his theory still fits. For me, the most compellng reason to believe him was the physical description Plato gives of Atlantis which, when compared to the physical description of Troy, is startlingly close. There are only two places mentioned in classical works whcih are described as havng both hot and cold springs - Atlantis and, yes, Troy. Zangger wrote his book a few years ago and postulated that the city of Troy might turn out to be larger than simply the Hissarlik mound. He claimed that, if it was, the description would match Atlantis even more closely. Recent digs have confirmed that he was correct.
I do try to keep an open mind on Atlantis theories. Suffic to say that Zangger's is far and away the most plausible and well explained interpretation that I have yet come across. Please don't mock it unless you've read it. -
Message 15
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Twinp
Evidence can be very suggestive. Are you sure you want me to submit mine.?
Your post suggests you do.
It is cool to meet an objective mind in such a subjective world.
My idea of evidence requires supportive facts as verification to thier prima facie value.?
Would be nice if everyone who replied to this post all contributed to this deliberation.
After all, we are talking about a serious interpretation of history...
To open my case i would like to present the following....
Your views please..
The "Peri Reis map", which is a genuine document, not a hoax of any kind, was made at Constantinople in ad 1513.
It focuses on the western coast of Africa, the Eastern coast of south America and the Northern coast of Antarctica.
Peri Reis could not have acquired his information on this latter region from contemporary explorers because Antarctica remained undiscovered until ad 1818...{more than 300 years after he drew the Maps
The ice free coast of "Queen Maud Land" shown the Map is a puzzle because because the geological evidence confirms that the latest date it could of been surveyed and charted in an ice free condition is 4000 bc...
Your response Gentlemen
Z
-
Message 16
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Evidence can be very suggestive. Are you sure you want me to submit mine.?
Μύ
Well yes, of course we do. You cannot make claims and not back them up (that is, if you want to be taken seriously)
It is cool to meet an objective mind in such a subjective world.
Μύ
A subjective comment if ever I heard one. I am always suspicious of those who say they are objective and others are subjective. Interesting that up to this point, others have mentioned evidence for why Antarctica cannot have been home to a civilisation, but none has been forthcoming so far to back the theory of an Antarctic civilisation.
The "Peri Reis map", which is a genuine document, not a hoax of any kind, was made at Constantinople in ad 1513.
It focuses on the western coast of Africa, the Eastern coast of south America and the Northern coast of Antarctica.
Peri Reis could not have acquired his information on this latter region from contemporary explorers because Antarctica remained undiscovered until ad 1818...{more than 300 years after he drew the Maps
The ice free coast of "Queen Maud Land" shown the Map is a puzzle because because the geological evidence confirms that the latest date it could of been surveyed and charted in an ice free condition is 4000 bc...
Μύ
The Piri Reis map was done on this messageboard not so long ago, although it did get off the map onto other subjects quickly. Here's the link:
The Piri Reis map does not show the Antarctic coastline (with or without ice) accurately. In fact, it doesn't even come close. For yonks, before the discovery of Australia and Antarctica it was theorised that the southern hemisphere had a huge land mass to counter those of the northern hemisphere. Consequently, many cartographers filled in the large gaps with a "terra incognita australis". You'll find a lot of maps from the period you're talking about with a southern continent that could be Antarctica, or could be Australia, but none of those depictions are anywhere near accurate and are all taken from the cartographer's imagination, or copied from previous maps which also had made-up coastlines for the bits not known.
When Captain James Cook was discovering and surveying many of the lands of the Pacific and Southern Oceans, he was expecting to find a large southern land mass - that was one of the reasons he was there (not his first voyage though). He thought that New Zealand may have been in when he first arrived there, but quickly established that it was just two islands. As he travelled further south closer to polar latitudes he was surprised not to find any land - it went against all the expectations of the day that a massive southern landmass existed.
In conclusion, Piri Reis doe NOT represent Antarctica, with or without ice. As with MANY maps produced at the time, a great southern continent is added as that was expected to be there, but those depictions are NOT based on ANY known landmass. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Obviously I will agree with (almost) everyone here, there does not seem to be any element that points to Antarctica as to a place of an Atlantian or any other civilisation. Anyone can keep searching if he wishes so but then one cannot talk as if he is convinced unless he has something in hand. And till now nobody has anything in hand apart suppositions that virtually hang in the air.
I am going back to the myth. The myth - no matter if true, false or erroneous in its details - is pretty much clear: "west of the Hercules columns, in the great ocean, and west of the Atlantis group of islands lies another large group of smaller islands and west of this group lies a whole huge continent.... Well pretty much clear that the only place on earth that can be is the Atlantic ocean: in the ocean west of Gibraltar, east of the Carribean and the Americas. It cannot be neither the Aegean (a sea that mariners knew by heart since pre-history, nor the Black Sea nor anything else). So it is in the Atlantic ocean that we have to search.
And even if we search what do you think we will find? I guess nothing much. The myth talks about times 12,000 years prior to our age (around 9,500 years prior to Plato's age). Now judging from what we are able to find in underwater structures datig as recently as 2000 years back (e.g. ancient ports in the Mediterranean) who can say what we can find from underwater structures dating 12,000 years back? In fact the only underground structures we find is those built in hard stone like marbles. However going back to the myth we read that Atlantians used 3 types of bricks which resemble being more like soft-clay bricks, and from there on they used soft metals like gold, silver and copper - one of the first metals to be used in metalworking (together with meteoric iron but that only in the few places it existed in small quantities). So what could remain out of all that relatively soft construction? 12,000 later? I do not know how many meters under the bottom of the ocean? Pretty much nothing and not even the satellites are in position of showing anything.
All the above of course is hypothetic and in the case that the myth is well founded - cos it is hard to believe that it makes reference elsewhere. If there is nothing west of the Gibraltar then there is nothing elsewhere too and the myth is an unbased myth. However, till now the myth was partly correct on 1 detail: indeed there was an island west of Gribraltar, actually 3 islands, but then very small ones but in fact these were around 10,000 back, i.e. 2000 years after the hypothetic sinking of Atlantis for which the myth says that what followed was a huge muddy surface that forbid sailing there and thus the Atlantic ocean routes were completely forgotten, a detail which is very much in line with the geological findings. Not that it proves anything either since we have not found what lied there 12,000 years ago.
What is more interesting about the Piri Reis map is 1 thing, and that is not the hypothetic Antarctica. In wikipedia we find the following explanation of the map:
So as Stoggler said, Piri Reis could just be influenced by ancient maps showing a hypothetic Terra Incognita Australis in the south and he linked that with the south part of South America. But that is not what intrigues me.
What intrigues me is the visible difference of the shape of north South America. We see clearly that in the place of the Amazon river the land is condiererably retracted. I do not know if we can establish that in 500 years the Amazon made all that huge difference (maybe yes), but in the map we not only the Amazon but also the other main rivers in the north (where the 3 Gyuanas lie) which also considerably vary in shape. To my eyes - and I am not a specialist - the map is very clear and even if I assume that ancient carthographers naturally over-stressed the details in the deltas to the expense of overall accuracy, it is still a a considerable difference so these rivers must have a high degree of sedimentation/progradation to have made all that difference in 1500 years.
Note that Piri Reis was an Ottoman mariner and chartographer, being born near Kallipoli, which makes him most possible of Greek origins (unless you believe Turkmen capable of leaving their horses for the shipd - something they had not done it even in the 19th century). Christopher Colombus was also most possible of Greek origins being from the island of Chios (belonging to Genova, thus not Genovese but merely Genovese citizen - he hardly spoke Italian anyway and his Spanish sailors were saying that he talked in a strange language with his family, he also called uncle a Greek nobleman working in the French navy, then he signed in Greek blah blah*...at the end he could be possibly of quite very noble origin as to be distant relative of the Palaiologoi last Emperors... so he must had some access to knowledge not available in Western Europe - people said he was in possession of maps, more ancient maps. I think Piri Reis said he was also in possession of some Colombus maps together with the Portuguese maps he took from caught Portuguese ships in the Mediterranean in the early 1500s - too early for having completed works of these maps, while Colombus, we know clearly he had not mapped the Americas at all.
So there is some suspicion - not proven - that somebody else had done the first mapping there and he might had done it quite many years in the past, perhaps more than 500 years their era. Who knows? No proof yet on that, but in the absence of more deeper knowledge this coastline puzzles me.
** Seriously this is not an effort of mine to make Colombus a Greek. It is what most elements show to us. Spanish called him an foreigner, Portuguese the same, he hardly spoke Italian and spoke in Spanish to Italian bankers and finally he never said he was an Italian himself, he merely said he was from the city of Genova. His link with Chios is well established. All point to a Greek origin. -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Hi zerafim,
Thanks for your reply. On this message-board evidence is always eagerly awaited. It is interesting to know what opinions posters have, but even more interesting to discover how those opinions were formed. Incidentally we are not all gentlemen!
Your post raises two important issues. Firstly whether documentation is more, or less, significant to interpreting the past than physical evidence on the ground. The second is the principle of parsimony, in other words the discipline of explaining the seemingly inexplicable with the fewest possible additional assumptions.
I shall be frank and say that I cannot say whether the Piri Reis map is genuine or not. I know the matter is still debated and Stoggler provides a very clear exposition of the case against the map. In due course (evidence again!) I should like to learn the reasons that lead you to support its authenticity. Anyway, I am perfectly happy at present to accept the genuineness of the map (that it is an early 16th Turkish map drawn up using the best and most recent contemporary evidence) since it doesn't really affect the rest of my argument.
The interpretation of the land mass at the bottom of the map has been long debated as you will know. Is it an ice-free Antarctica? Is it an extension of South America? Is it intended to be the Falkland Islands? This brings me to my first point. There is massive amounts of evidence that both polar regions have been glaciated for millions of years and Antarctica has been in the south polar region for millions of years. As I understand it ice cores evidence goes back for half a million years at least. It seems highly implausible that humans could have been even temporarily established here during the existence of our species, for the environmental reasons already given in this thread. A civilisation in 4000 BC seems absolutely impossible from the evidence on the ground, whatever map or documentary evidence might suggest.
Some scholars of the Piri Reis map have taken matters one step further and, more or less accepting the point in my last paragraph, have suggested that the information on an ice-free Antarctica was based on the observations of very ancient extra-terrestrial travellers. This, in my view, is a great deal worse since one has to invent such extra-terrestrials as well as some mechanism for their communicating with Turkish cartographers. If the map's southern continent is indeed Antarctica then less controversially it might indicate (for example) that voyages by Portuguese or Phoenician explorers were earlier, more extensive, or more successful in their speculations, than previously considered.
I really think it is best to leave unproven extra-terrestrials and high technological civilisations out of consideration unless and until some independent evidence is obtained. At the rate Global Warming is advancing the ice caps will melt before long, and then we shall know for certain!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 19
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Exhibit "B"
8 RECONNAISSANCE TECHNICAL SQUADRON {SAC}
UNITED STATES AIRFORCE
Westover Airforce Base
Massachusetts..
SUBJECT: Admiral Piri Reis World Map
To; Professor Charles H. Hapgood
Keen college,
Keen,New Hampshire
Dear Professor Hapgood,
Your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis World Map of 1513 by this organisation has been reviewed.
The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land Antarctica, and the Palmer peninsula, is reasonable. We find 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 ICECAP.
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... -
Message 20
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
EN.
Atlantis being beyond the "gates of Hercules", is not creditable and is a fairy tale told to children round a fire....
Z -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Hi Zerafim,
Thanks. As you can imagine the works of Charles Hapgood are not wholly unknown on these pages and I have often hoped that someone would confirm that there really was a Harold Z. Ohlmeyer in the USAF! The text is usually copied from webpage to webpage without additional supporting evidence.
If true I'm not sure the letter gets us anywhere. The mile thickness of ice reported by Lt-Col Ohlmeyer would surely have taken hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate, so surely we are not looking at observations that occurred in historical times. My son tells me that an antarctic base of the right age is a feature of the film 'Alien v Predator', but he has no respect for his Dad's love of history.
Sorry but civilised Antarctica in historical times seems quite impossible for the good environmental reasons already given. The good folk of the Antarctic had to eat, drink, and trade; but these activities do not seem feasible.
TP -
Message 22
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Twinp
Are you prepared to accept the idea of "Earth crust displacement" {I'm sure you understand this discipline}
But first {after all we have the time}
Origin of Piri Reis Map.?
Z -
Message 23
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Exhibit "B"Μύ
Ohlmeyer makes the mistake of assuming that the ice free coastline of antarctica is the same as the coastline under the ice:
Nevertheless, here's an image of the sub-glacial topography (adjusted for the rise in sea level for the melting ice and the isostatic rebound):
Ohlmeyer was talking out of his ass if he thinks that correlates to the Piri Reis map.
Given that the PR map is a composite, the "Antarctica" bit looks like Uruguay and Argentina with the orientation shifted by about 90 degrees. Possibly a map fragment with the compass point missing and then incorrectly copied into PR's map -
Message 24
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Are you prepared to accept the idea of "Earth crust displacement"Μύ
No, I'm not! The theory was an early attempt to explain the movement of continents and has been largely abandoned by any respectable geologists as evidence for plate techtonics was found. It's noteworthy that one of the main proponents of the earth crust displacement, Charles Hapgood, was a historian, not a geologist:
And also worth noting that he came to the theory because it helped prove his other theory about an ice-free Antarctica. -
Message 25
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
TP
Preconditions for the emergence of an advanced civilization.
Major Mountain Ranges.?
Huge river systems.?
A vast region which occupied a land area at least two thousand miles across.?
A stable, congenial climate for 10 thousand years.{To allow time for a developed culture to evolve.}
Exhibit C:
Seismic surveys demonstrate there are major mountain ranges in Antarctica...
Antarctica's landmass is about seven times larger than Madagascar...
These Ancient maps show large river systems flowing down from the mountains,, watering the Extensive valleys and plains below and running into the surrounding Ocean...And these rivers, {Ross sea cores} have left physical evidence of thier presence in the composition of Ocean bottom sediments..
Your views Ladies and Gentlemen:
Z
In order to best put this theme across i will need to "plagiarize" a little from this point onwards.{Is this acceptable to you ?}Giving links seem to make you lot lazy,,
After all, rewriting History is no easy job, and it's the point that matters here, So try to avoid shooting the messenger.. -
Message 26
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
That's ok cloudyj
After all it's the "conventual" viewpoint that i wish to discredit. So i hope you stay with us For a bit as a representative of such convention..{We are after all challenging it..}
So by REASON, your views are appreciated and respected.
cheers
Z -
Message 27
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Albert Einstein....
Foreword to a book written by Hapgood.
"I frequently recieve communications from people who wish to consult me concerning thier unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communications, however that i received from Mr Hapgood ELECTRIFIED me, His idea is original, of great simplicity, and-if it continues to prove itself-of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the Earths surface"
I hope this restores Hapgood's good name, after all he is dead...
All views welcome and appreciated.
Z -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Major Mountain Ranges.?
Huge river systems.?
A vast region which occupied a land area at least two thousand miles across.?
A stable, congenial climate for 10 thousand years.{To allow time for a developed culture to evolve.}Μύ
None of these are essential in my view. Advanced civilizations developed without mountain ranges (Egypt), huge river systems (Mayan Yucatan), or large land areas (Greece).
A stable climate for a long time isn't necessary if a civilization can be imported for elsewhere (Australia).
What is important is a climate which allows for the regular and sustainable production of crops and a system which generates such regular and sufficient excess to allow some section of society to not work the fields.
The conventional view, backed by evidence from ice cores, would claim that Antarctica hasn't been suitable for successful agriculture in the life span of modern humans.
Albert Einstein....
Foreword to a book written by Hapgood.
"I frequently recieve communications from people who wish to consult me concerning thier unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communications, however that i received from Mr Hapgood ELECTRIFIED me, His idea is original, of great simplicity, and-if it continues to prove itself-of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the Earths surface"Μύ
This, and Hapgood's book, both predate the masses and masses of evidence which supports the theory of plate techtonics and is overwhelmingly incompatible with Hapgoods ideas of sudden and large shift of large areas of the world's surface.
Had Einstein seen the geological evidence of the 1960s I wonder if he really would have written the foreward. Genius he may have been, but without much evidence he's just commenting on an unsupported theory. -
Message 29
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Monday, 24th August 2009
CJ
Thanks again for your post.
I do not accept that the "civilized" cultures you speak of, especially Egypt, did Evolve in a Natural way.
I will explain this to you if you open another thread on the subject.
For example:
Remains from the predynastic period {around 3500 bc} show no trace of writing. Soon after that date, -quite suddenly- and may i say, inexplicably, the hieroglyphs familiar from ancient Egypt begin to appear in a complete and perfect state.
Even the central content of such refined works as the "book of the dead" existed right at the start of the dynastic period.
"THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM PRIMITIVE TO ADVANCED SOCIETY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SO SHORT THAT IT MAKES NO KIND OF HISTORICAL SENSE."
Ergo, i will stick with "Exhibit C"
Thanks for your view good sir
Z -
Message 30
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Hi Zerafim,
βAre you prepared to accept the idea of "Earth crust displacement" {I'm sure you understand this discipline}β Μύ
Thanks. I think I now understand where you are coming from. Sorry to have been so slow but I thought initially that you might have had an interesting speculation of your own. It might have been easier if you had simply asked us what we thought of the Hapgood-Hancock theories straight out. Graham Hancock features on these boards with, what I feel I must call, depressing regularity.
The facts, as I see them, are these. If you start (which I don't) with the idea of 'hyperdiffusionism', that is that all ancient civilisations developed following the diffusion of ancient knowledge from a single source, you need a suitable source. Shall we call this source 'Atlantis', although it differs from Plato's Atlantis in many ways. So, where do we locate Atlantis? No obvious ruins of an unknown highly developed society are recognised and the modern theories of Plate Tectonics do not allow for large islands, let alone continents, to disappear in mid-Atlantic. Antarctica is an attractive option since it is large and difficult to explore; anything could be hidden there one might think.
According to conventional, and I believe entirely correct, wisdom Antarctica has been glaciated for millions of years. Too long for the Atlantis theory. Earth crust displacement is a way of rapidly moving a temperate Antarctic into a polar position, not at the end of the Creataceous Era but in the historical past, where its flourishing Atlantean civilisation can perish in the cold along with its mountain ranges and fields and rivers and buildings. βJust like thatβ as the immortal Tommy Cooper used to say.
But actually ECDs are nonsense. We have no evidence that the crust does behave like this and if Antarctica had moved suddenly in 8000 BC or whenever this would not explain the ice-core evidence of at least 500,000 years of glaciation. The sudden arrival of a mile of ice on top of the land surface would have done strange things to the shore line geography which is, supposedly, the same now as 10,000 years ago. ECD is quite an interesting hypothesis but it was espoused by Prof Hapgood, a historian of science not a geologist, and Graham Hancock who is, I believe, a sociologist. Mind you perhaps we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story.
'Nuff said. Best wishes,
TP -
Message 31
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
After all it's the "conventual" viewpoint that i wish to discredit.Μύ
If you want to discredit the "conventual" (sic) viewpoint you have to provide evidence and counter the arguments for the conventional viewpoint, rather than just use one 16th century Turkish map to back up your hypothesis.
---You have to be able to explain away the sheer quantity of ice that is on the Antarctic continent - that amount of ice cannot simply form in a few decades but takes many millenia to accumulate. You have to be able to explain away the ice core evidence from a number of sites across the continent.
---You have to explain how a civilisation can grow and exist in a continent that only gets six months of sunlight, and sunlight that is too weak for many plants to grow, and where no known crops can exist in such a climate.
---You have to explain how humans managed to progress to such a degree in such harsh inhospitable conditions long before they did elsewhere on earth. Even today, only small populations can be supported in the extreme latitudes of the world without minimal outside help. An ecosystem simply has not existed in Antarctica to support a population of humans or any other large animal other than penguins and a few other sea-based mammals.
---You have to explain how humans got there. Antarctica is a very isolated land mass, and anyone wishing to get there has to have good sea-going craft and be able to have enough food for a protracted journey and be able to withstand extremes in temperature and wind speeds.
---You have to address the very valid critisisms of Hapgood and his discredited earth crust displacement theory. Einstein may very well have written a good foreword in Hapgood's book, but (capital alert - for emphasis) YOU HAVE TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE - think about when that was. This was the 1950s when the plate tectonic theory had not been formulised in geology and it still was not known how or why the continents moved. 60 years of evidence later and the only people who believe in earth crust displacement are those who have read some things on the internet and read a book written 60 years ago and thinking that's the latest in scienctific research! Noticably, the people who actually study the earth do not believe in it!!
The earth crust displacement theory has been shown not to be true. The earth does change its position in relation to the sun - it essentially wobbles in space but these are long cycles known as the Milankovitch cycle. These cycles explain the timings of previous glacial and inter-glacial periods in the earth's recent past (by recent, I mean the last million years). Look up Milankovitch, very interesting topic.
Those ice cores I mentioned - I have actually seen some (although not Antarctic ones) as part of my university degree where I studied past climates in the Quaternary (the geological period we're in now) and those cores show the slow accumulation of ice over millenia. The ones I have seen have been taken from Greenland. Similarly, cores taken from ocean beds of accumulated silt have been taken. All these cores can be studied and isotope analysis of the contents give an indication of the climate at the time the ice/silt was laid, and they all largely correspond with each other regardless of where in the world they were taken. What they show is that the climate in the polar regions has been very cold and inhospitable for hundreds of thousands of years. This is not some theory come up with in a pub on a beer mat but rather rigorous peer-reviewed research that has been tested and re-tested.
So, you're left with a situation where there is a shed-load of overwhelming evidence against a civilisation being able to exist on Antarctica c.15,000 yrs BP, and it is necessary for someone with a counter-argument to show evidence that this civilsation existed. One map of an iffy coastline made 600 years ago, and a book written 60 years ago and whose theories HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE are not sufficient evidence. -
Message 32
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Hi TP
Good post
But actually ECDs are nonsense. We have no evidence that the crust does behave like this and if Antarctica had moved suddenly in 8000 BC or whenever this would not explain the ice-core evidence of at least 500,000 years of glaciation. The sudden arrival of a mile of ice on top of the land surface would have done strange things to the shore line geography which is, supposedly, the same now as 10,000 years ago. ECD is quite an interesting hypothesis but it was espoused by Prof Hapgood, a historian of science not a geologist, and Graham Hancock who is, I believe, a sociologist. Mind you perhaps we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Μύ
And in addition to what you say there, if Antarctica had quickly changed from a warmer climate to a polar one quickly, it would have displaced other areas of the globe that had originally been polar, which would have had catastrosphic consequences that would be everywhere in the geological record. Strangely, there is no evidence of such an event anywhere in the world...! -
Message 33
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Thanks TP
Always was one for a good story. Especially in view of the amount of stale stories establishment convention forces us to accept.
Must point out though that Piri Reis is just a small part of this tale so it follows that i must respond, regardless of conventions view,to some points you make in your post.
First;
If i thought that you "spacemen" would give me a straight and non bias view to this theme then i would of asked for your view . re; Hapgood. Alas i have never read any of his books, just articles, so i would be in no position to discuss any of his books.
While the Piri Reis map exsists, {along with others,ie;Oronteus Finaeus} Then until it is explained, by yourselves, then I'm afraid that logic suggests that it is convention that is telling a good story...{one that has, in my view, been pulling the wool over human eyes for quite some time.
I have , until your post never heard of this Hancock fellow either.
I personally can go for your Hyperdiffusionism suggestion , even if you can-not {I'm sure you have your reasons tp}
But that is a whole different kettle of fish and will require a new thread.
Which i have opened in response to CJ's suggestion that civilization requires no prerequisites to evolve..
I will respond to that post and would feel blessed if you would respond to it also.
But back to my theme on this point..
Antarctica.....
I know it is custom for the defence to put its case last, but it would be nice if you would give me your take on how these maps were made..A lucky guess maybe.?
Exhibit D;
Let me go back to Einstein;
"In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The Earths rotation acts on these unsymmetrical deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the Earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way WILL , when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the Earths crust over the rest of the Earths body..." {Is this acceptable to yourselves.?}
Even if Academic concensus disagrees with ECD..And do you find this statement made by Einstein to be a fair response to the comments of your last paragraph.?
Thanks for your post
Z -
Message 34
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Let me go back to Einstein;
"In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The Earths rotation acts on these unsymmetrical deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the Earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way WILL , when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the Earths crust over the rest of the Earths body..." {Is this acceptable to yourselves.?}
Even if Academic concensus disagrees with ECDΜύ
The reason Academic concensus disagrees with ECD is because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. How much plainer can one be - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. If there is no evidence for a particular theory, but there is overwhelming evidence of another theory backed up by hundreds of individuals' work, why believe that the former is true?
By the way, there is not sufficient centrifugal force on the earth spinning on its axis to produce the effect explained in the quote above - if it were the case then it would have happened throughout Earth's history, and once again such events would leave huge whacking amounts of geological evidence and strangely, there is none. Not an iota. Not a sausage. NO EVIDENCE OF ECD. How many more times can I say that?
Unless you know different of course... -
Message 35
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Let me go back to Einstein;
"In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The Earths rotation acts on these unsymmetrical deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the Earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way WILL , when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the Earths crust over the rest of the Earths body..." {Is this acceptable to yourselves.?}
Even if Academic concensus disagrees with ECDΜύ
Forgot to mention - Einstein's foreword in Hapgood's book was written BEFORE plate tectonics was a theory. We have had 50 years' worth of scientific research since, which has dismissed ECD and backs plate tectonics.
Have you not ready cloudy's or my previous posts? Einstein was writing at a time when we did not know about plate tectonics, we do know. So you cannot put much faith in what Einstein wrote in a foreword (not an academic paper I note!) FIFTY years ago. That's a lot of time and a lot of scientific advancement - please stop putting so much emphasis on something that is out of date, and has been proven to be wrong. -
Message 36
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Antarctica.....
I know it is custom for the defence to put its case last, but it would be nice if you would give me your take on how these maps were made..A lucky guess maybe.?
Μύ
What do you mean "a lucky guess"? What's lucky about getting a coastline wrong?
Anyway, how does discussing how maps were made get to whether Antarctica was the home of a civilisation or not? It doesn't.
I can't help noticing that you seem to be avoiding all the geological evidence that clearly suggests that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human society to have existed there in the time frames involved. Why have you not addressed that? -
Message 37
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
I must admit I know very little about all of this. However I do tend to believe that myths of this type are based on at least some truth. Aren't there several 'destruction of civilisation' myths held by Mediterranean cultures from around the same time? Atlantis and the floods of Noah in the Bible spring to mind but I'm sure I've read somewhere that there are more. If so some sort of tidal wave or earthwake (or a combination of both) would seem more likely that climate change. Certainly destruction of that kind has historical precedent when you think of the fact that the North Sea used to be land rather than water and humans used to roam across it so quick floods are very possible.
Even accounting for climate change Antarctica does seem a bit far-fetched - how about Greenland, Iceland or even North America as alternatives? We know that they have been subjected to various climatatic changes and that human habitation has waxed and waned accordingly. -
Message 38
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Thanks for your post Stoggler
When 1000 people walk into a bookies to have a bet the odds are that 999 of them will lose thier money... That's just the way it goes. You will never find a bookies bag in a porn shop..
Glad to see though someone knowledgeable enough to undermine Einstein..
As to "It would of happened throughout Earths history". Hold that page.
And yes there is plenty of evidence for ECD. Just depends on where you look, and if you follow this post for a bit longer i will point it out to you.
But please Stoggler until then, how about a bit of feed back on these maps..Because if you cant get your head around those ..What value are the rest of your comments.?
Z -
Message 39
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
That's just the way it goes. You will never find a bookies bag in a porn shop..
Μύ
What does that mean?
Glad to see though someone knowledgeable enough to undermine Einstein..
Μύ
He was writing before the plate tectonic theory was formulated, so I am not underming him, merely pointing out that he cannot be blamed for not knowing what is known in the future. Besides, he was a physicist and not a geologist and he was not writing his own theories on the subject, merely writing a foreword in someone else's book.
As to "It would of happened throughout Earths history". Hold that page.
And yes there is plenty of evidence for ECD. Just depends on where you look, and if you follow this post for a bit longer i will point it out to you.
Μύ
As someone who has studied geology, I await your evidence with baited breath. Whatever it will be new to me and to every other geologist in the world - I wonder how such evidence for ECD passed so many people by?
But please Stoggler until then, how about a bit of feed back on these maps..Because if you cant get your head around those ..What value are the rest of your comments.?
Μύ
I HAVE COMMENTED ON THE PIRI REIS MAP, AND BROUGHT IN OTHER MAPS OF THE TIME. Please read my message 16. I mentioned that most maps of that period show a southern continent, even though they did not have evidence of one. I also mentioned that these maps show a "terra australis incognita". I also mentioned that people assumed there was a massive southern landmass, hence why they drew in the missing parts on a map of the world.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what exactly you are expecting me to say on your maps. Maps per se are not going to provide all the answers. You need to look at ALL the evidence.
Because if you cant get your head around those ..What value are the rest of your comments.?Μύ
Like I say, I'm not sure what exactly you want me to say about the maps that I haven't already said.
As to valuing the rest of my comments, how about other peoples' comments on the subject of the Antarctic ice sheet? How about this:
or this:
or this:
which states that ice started forming in Antarctica 34 million years ago.
None of those are my comments, so take them on board.
Now, as you make the claim, please please please can you explain how you think a civilisation could have existed in Antarctica despite many many people willing to disagree with you based on all the DIRECT EVIDENCE? A simple request, but one that you (so far) seem unwilling to attend to. -
Message 40
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Especially in view of the amount of stale stories establishment convention forces us to accept.Μύ
No-one is forced to accept any establishnent theory - a quick look at the internet will prove the popularity of alternative theories.
But I wonder how you think the "establishment" arrived at those theories?
While the Piri Reis map exsists, {along with others,ie;Oronteus Finaeus} Then until it is explained, by yourselves, then I'm afraid that logic suggests that it is convention that is telling a good story...{one that has, in my view, been pulling the wool over human eyes for quite some time.
Μύ
Why does logic sugggest we must throw away thousands of pieces of scientific evidence which back up plate techtonic theory, thousands of pieces of evidence which prove Antarctica to be covered in a thick ice shelf with a proven age?
To explain a handful of maps which (in my view) do not show Antartica? To explain maps which theorize a land mass which was assumed to be there? To explain how a mythological continent disappeared?
I'm afriad the logical response is to go with the vast amount of evidence rather than the tiny amount of disputable evidence.
I have , until your post never heard of this Hancock fellow either.
Μύ
You should get hold of his "Fingerprints of the Gods", you'll enjoy it and find a fellow traveller. If nothing else, it's a cracking read, but suffers from making assumptions based on limited facts and whilst ignoring other inconvenient facts.
I know it is custom for the defence to put its case last, but it would be nice if you would give me your take on how these maps were made..A lucky guess maybe.?Μύ
The PR map is an amalgamantion of several maps (PR himself tells us this in the margin of his map, some of which are better than others. One of the maps he incorporated is a poor one of southern america where either the sailors or PR got the orientation wrong.
The Oronteus Fineus map doesn't accurately portray Antarctica - it lacks an obvious equivalent of the Antarctic Peninsular (either with of without ice).
I'll second guess which other maps you mean:
Mercator's map of 1567:
Again, no Antarctic Peninsular.
Buache's map of 1739:
Some of this is accurate. Though hardly surprising as Buache names contempory sailors who did the mapping!
-
Message 41
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Mattj18
No evidence for the following , but interesting non the less.
Myths of the Hopi Indians {Arizona}
The first world was destroyed, as a punishment for human misdemeanours, by an all consuming fire that came from above and below. The second world ended when the terrestrial globe toppled from it's Axis and everything was covered with ice. The third world ended in a universal flood. The present world is the forth. Its fate will depend on whether or not its inhabitants behave in accordance with the creators plans..
Just a myth , i know but....
Z -
Message 42
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Hi Stoggler
"BOOKIES" it means that the odds are empirically fixed.
Einsteins theory; E=mc2..Is either right or wrong, regardless of any future postulations.?So if Einstein says "Centrifugal momentum...etc" was right then, then it is right today.{get my point.?}
With respect to your reply to the maps, not map, The true enigma of this 1513 map is not so much its inclusion of a continent not discovered until 1818 but its portrayal of part of the coastline of that continent under ice free conditions which came to an end 6000 years ago and have not yet recurred.?
So my question to you sir is;
How can this be explained.?
And please forgive me if i dont follow your links. "Science" storeys are for people who believe convention.
I await your reply.
Z -
Message 43
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Thanks for the clarification about the bookies reference
With respect to your reply to the maps, not map, The true enigma of this 1513 map is not so much its inclusion of a continent not discovered until 1818 but its portrayal of part of the coastline of that continent under ice free conditions which came to an end 6000 years ago and have not yet recurred.?
So my question to you sir is;
How can this be explained.?
Μύ
This has been explained already on this thread, so I need not add much else:
message 23 - cloudyj gives a response and some links to back up his point - the Piri Reis map does not show Antarctica with or without ice:
message 17 - Nik shows this link which is a reasonable explanation for the Piri Reis' southern landmass:
I will however add this link:
which mentions this about Einstein's name being brought into this:
MOM then quotes a letter dated May 8, 1953 and published in The Path of the Pole by Dr. Charles Hapgood (1970) in which Dr. Albert Einstein wrote:
"I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust of the Earth have taken place repeatedly and within a short period of time."
When reading this quote, a person has to remember that it was made in 1953 long before much of what is now known about plate tectonics; the structure of the mantle and crust of the Earth; the Quaternary geology of Antarctica, Alaska, and Siberia; the creation of the "frozen" mammoths and other animals; and many other things had been discovered. No matter how brilliant a person might be, his conclusions can be only as good as the data that is available to them. In the case of Dr. Einstein, his conclusions are erroneous because they are built on data which research over the last 43 years have shown to be incorrect and obsolete.
Μύ
The bit that nails it for me with regard to Einstein is this:
No matter how brilliant a person might be, his conclusions can be only as good as the data that is available to them.Μύ -
Message 44
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
However I do tend to believe that myths of this type are based on at least some truth. Aren't there several 'destruction of civilisation' myths held by Mediterranean cultures from around the same time? Atlantis and the floods of Noah in the Bible spring to mind but I'm sure I've read somewhere that there are more. If so some sort of tidal wave or earthwake (or a combination of both) would seem more likely that climate change. Certainly destruction of that kind has historical precedent when you think of the fact that the North Sea used to be land rather than water and humans used to roam across it so quick floods are very possible.
Μύ
You're right Matt. Many ancient belief systems had such myths, especially flood based ones. Peoples from the middle and near east, in the Americas, and elsewhere had stories of a destructive flood inundating and killing people. You'll see from this link just how widespread flood myths are/were:
That's essentially global, or at least those peoples on or near sea.
This however can be explained by the fact that up to about 12,000 yrs BP, the global sea level was about 120m lower than today. With the end of the last ice age the sea levels rose. In some cases it rose exceptionally dramatically. In localised areas, natural dams were breached causing catastrophic flooding of low-lying lands: the Black Sea about 7,600yrs BP, the Caspian and Black Seas about 16,000yrs BP, the Persian Gulf refilling floods about 12,000yrs BP (which may be the origin of the Biblical flood story which also appears in Sumerian and Akkadian myths/histories). There are a few more of these deluges from around the world, including possible mega-tsunamis:
-
Message 45
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Matt,
Large floods are common events in most parts of the world and inevitably become part of myth. And even today, our societies are not immune from claiming supernatural forces as the cause:
The Black Sea in particular shows definite signs of early settlements which disappeared (either gladually or catastrophically) under the waves, never to be reclaimed. -
Message 46
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Sorry TP.
Seems i have overstepped my brief. Maybe we will get lucky and find ourselves in another place and time to finish this storey.
But could i just leave you with this point, {even if premature in its making}
During the course of each year the Earths movement along its orbit causes the stellar background against which the Sun is seen to rise to change from month to month; Aquarius--Pisces--Aries--Taurus--Gemini--Cancer--Leo..etc. At present, on the vernal equinox, the sun rises due east between Pisces and Aquarius. The effect of precession is to cause the "vernal point" to be reached fractionally earlier in the orbit each year with the result that it very gradually shifts through all 12 houses of the zodiac, spending 2160 years in each sign and making a complete circuit in 25,920 years. The direction of this "processional drift", in opposition to the annual path of the Sun, is;Leo--Cancer--Gemini--Taurus--Aries--Pisces--Aquarius. To give one example, of the age of Leo, ie; 2160 years during which the Sun on the vernal equinox rose against the stellar background of the constellation of Leo lasted from 10,970 to 8810 bc. We live today in the astrological no mans land at the end of the age of Pisces, on the threshold of the new age of Aquarius..Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened..
This will not make much sense without the lead up to it TP,
Science might make sense when you add 2+2 but there are more inexplicable forces at work in the Cosmos that are beyond Earth science..
Sorry i couldn't bring you to my view in an ordered evidential way.
kind regards
Z -
Message 47
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
This will not make much sense without the lead up to it TP,
Science might make sense when you add 2+2 but there are more inexplicable forces at work in the Cosmos that are beyond Earth science..
Μύ
So you've never heard of Astrophysics then... -
Message 48
Posted by fimbar (U14054219) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Stoggler.
If one is looking for an undiscovered civilization of great originators who "made" it on there own,separate from the ones we already know, you are not looking for a needle in a haystack. You are looking for a city in its hinterland. A vast region which occupied a land area at least the size of the gulf of Mexico. It would have major mountain ranges, river systems and a Mediterranean to sub tropical climate which was buffered by its latitude from the adverse effects of short term climate cooling. It would have needed this relatively undisturbed climate to last at least 10,000 years..
My argument is , as you know, this..
Antarctica was not always covered in ice and was at one time much warmer than it is today..
It was warm because it was not physically located at the south pole in that period. Instead it was approximately 2000 miles further north
The continent moved to its present position inside the Antarctic circle in a temperate or cold temperate climate.
The continent moved to its present position inside the Antarctic circle as a result of Earth crust displacement. This mechanism, not to be confused with plate tectonics is one whereby the lithosphere, may be displaced at times, moving over the soft inner body{much as the skin of an orange if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece.
During the southwards movement of Antarctica , brought about by Earth-crust-displacement, the continent would gradually have grown colder, an ice cap forming and remorselessly expanding over several thousands of years until it attained its present dimensions.
Orthodox geologists do not accept this...I wonder why..
best wishes
Number 6 -
Message 49
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Orthodox geologists do not accept this...I wonder why..
Μύ
Simply because (and I apologise for repeating myself) there is simply no evidence for it.
Whereas there is a huge amount of evidence for plate tectonics, and Antarctica having not moved a few thousand miles in an exceptionally short period of time.
You keep on making these claims WITHOUT ADDRESSING POINTS PUT TO YOU. Read my message 31, particularly these points:
---You have to be able to explain away the sheer quantity of ice that is on the Antarctic continent - that amount of ice cannot simply form in a few decades but takes many millenia to accumulate. You have to be able to explain away the ice core evidence from a number of sites across the continent.
---You have to explain how a civilisation can grow and exist in a continent that only gets six months of sunlight, and sunlight that is too weak for many plants to grow, and where no known crops can exist in such a climate.
---You have to explain how humans managed to progress to such a degree in such harsh inhospitable conditions long before they did elsewhere on earth. Even today, only small populations can be supported in the extreme latitudes of the world without minimal outside help. An ecosystem simply has not existed in Antarctica to support a population of humans or any other large animal other than penguins and a few other sea-based mammals.
---You have to explain how humans got there. Antarctica is a very isolated land mass, and anyone wishing to get there has to have good sea-going craft and be able to have enough food for a protracted journey and be able to withstand extremes in temperature and wind speeds.
---You have to address the very valid critisisms of Hapgood and his discredited earth crust displacement theory. Einstein may very well have written a good foreword in Hapgood's book, but (capital alert - for emphasis) YOU HAVE TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE - think about when that was. This was the 1950s when the plate tectonic theory had not been formulised in geology and it still was not known how or why the continents moved. 60 years of evidence later and the only people who believe in earth crust displacement are those who have read some things on the internet and read a book written 60 years ago and thinking that's the latest in scienctific research! Noticably, the people who actually study the earth do not believe in it!!
Μύ
The onus is on YOU to counter these accepted views if people are to accept your theory. At no point have you given a reason why the ice pack in Antarctica provides ice cores that show the ice having been there for millions of years, not just a few thousand years. At no point have you explained why you think the ECD theory that was disproved a number of decades ago is still of relevance. Your acceptance of a theory written a number of decades ago which has been superceded by a new theory due to more evidence being available seems rather perverse to say the least. I hope you are just playing devil's advocate. -
Message 50
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
You might be interested to read this:
It covers the Pole Shift Theory
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.