This debate took place in the conversations forums of Discovery Channel, since this forum are erased
after certain time, I save them and put it here.
Unofrtunately the forums dissapear many years ago.
Sun Feb 28 21:09:25 1999
This topic may seem somewhat out of place but here is a real curiousity:
During the last ice age, sea level was about
300 feet lower. Mankind has always lived near water and built larger cities
near waterways until very recently. Has any effort been made to locate
any remains of ultra-ancient cities under the sea near the edge s of the
continental shelves close to ancient river channels where they would have
been most likely to have been built, and are there any methods of detecting
these remnants if they are buried under deep layers of silt?
Mon Mar 1 15:10:36 1999
No, there has been no attempt to locate ultra-ancient civilizations. Yes,
hypothetically there are methods for which we may locate these cities.
There has been some exploring of these ancient cities, but for the most
part the archeologists just don't want to know.
Mon Mar 1 23:48:49 1999
actually, Navy Geosat satellite data has been used to prepare a topographic
map of the entire ocean floor of the earth to a resolution of 6 miles,
this should show ay anolalies asociated with ancient sites.
I found this web page, on this theme.
Very interesting and it has a lot of references.
Tue Mar 2 08:58:57 1999
Are we looking for Atlantis? I'm not joking - it's something that has
fascinated me for years.
Tue Mar 2 15:16:49 1999
liancheng - Do you think that maybe the Chinese have more knowledge of
their ancient past than other peoples? How much do you know about ancient
Tue Mar 2 16:21:54 1999
People: I must strongly disagree with the comments by Dreamline. Archaeologist
not only want to know, but we are always doing research to learn more
about ancient societies, and our own. There have been many surveys carried
out in the waters near the present shorelines, mostly by underwater archaeologists
(a subfield of Arcaheology), of the United States, the Caribbean and many
other regions. Many important finds have been reported, mostly sunken
ships. But, no real evidence of "Ultra-Ancient Civilizations". It is not
that we are hidding something, simply there is nothing of the kind to
be reported. Why would we lie? Furthermore, geologists have been able
to survey most of the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, and their maps show
nothing that could be interpreted as a "Lost Continent" or civilization.
Sorry, but Atlantis is just a myth. Armaetno.
Tue Mar 2 17:07:07 1999
Hi, Armaetno! At one time the earth was also thought to be flat and/or
the center of the universe. A myth is only a myth until it is found to
be the truth. Still hoping! Love, ML
Tue Mar 2 19:26:59 1999
Hmmm... I guess I might have been mis-understood. I wasn't suggesting
Atlantis or very large cities. All I was looking for was if there has
been any evidence found for ancient port cities which may lie buried by
the sea and silt deposits. I don't think there was such a large population
back during the ice ages to support any notion of the existance of huge
cities with large populations if they existed though.
Even fossil remains on the continental shelf
would be interesting, but I suppose a lot of over-lying sand and silt
would need to be removed first, and a method of detection for solid objects
with similar densities buried beneath deep layers of sand would have to
be devised somehow.
Larger scale sonograms, perhaps?
Wed Mar 3 14:11:08 1999
then probably it will need a touch of luck.
The most ancient city knonw until now is Jericho,
tht show human ocupation from about 6,000 years ago, and maybe older.
Probably Jericho would had not been excavated
if it had not been mention in the bible, so maybe there are older sites,
but i will tkae some luck or something special to atract atention.
Now there is another question.. What is the
diference between a prehistoric site, and a low tech and low density civilization?
Althougth i don't expect many surprises from
archeological sites, i think there is a lot of interesting thing to be
And if the site i posted is right, a lot
of information and maps are already in the web, and many discovers would
be made from confortable offices...
it will be needed some field research to
confirm that :-)).
Thu Mar 4 19:17:37 1999
Now for an interesting question relating to ultra-ancient civilizations
living during the ice ages in places close to the edge of the continental
How did the ancestors of the Australian Aboriginals
get over to Australia over 60,000 years ago? Obviously they must have
had sea worthy boats able to carry both men and women to Australia back
So why would it not be reasonable to assume
there were some small port cities also existing somewhere on the planet?
Afterall people have always tended to stay together in groups, tribes,
nations, or whatever.
Food for further thought.
Tue Mar 9 16:10:38 1999
Curiosly, but i just have read in the spanish version of discover, that
there is evidence of presence by h erectus, about 800,000 years ago, in
The must have used some kind of boats to get
there, since it need control to get there.
Another interesting thing is that America
seem to have been colonized from south to north..
So, i ancient humasn had boats, they did not
need the ice bridge between Behring.
Yes, it's very interesting.
But i don't think they would have ports or
something like that.
Camps and dweelings probably would be more
Wed Mar 10 13:14:20 1999
What mystery about Atlantas? I thought that had been solved with all the
finds at Thera (Santorini). This was a very prosperous offshoot of the
Wed Mar 10 13:42:44 1999
While most in the scientific community find Atlantis to be mythical, there
are others who believer that it actually existed. Only time will tell.
Wed Mar 10 18:10:38 1999
oppps... I made a mistake in my last post :-/
the evidence of homo erectus was found in
the isle of Flores "NEAR" Australia.
the diference is importanta, since the isle
of flores can be seen from other islands, and Australia not.
So it's a more challenging experience to sail
where there is no land on sight.
Thos first inhabitantas of australia should
have been very brave people.
Fri Mar 12 19:21:49 1999
Javier, I'm glad you cleared that up!
I was having difficulty finding info on this.
I've heard about the Homo Erectus findings on Flores, but never even heard
any mention of any found in Australia. Still, ocean travel over 800,000
years ago shows Homo Erectus was much smarter than what his species is
stereotyped to be by most scientific circles and the people who have been
educated by these sources. My guess as to why this is: No metal tools
or pottery was used by them, leaving only stone tools which do not rot
or corrode. The organic boats would generally not survive the elements
of biodegradation so naturally none would be found except by some rare
freak accident under the right conditions. But then, would news of such
a find be believed or even published? It seems if they find anything on
the ocean floor it might be some stray stone tools buried under quite
a layer of sand and silt, but that would be like hunting for needles in
As for lower sea levels during the ice ages
and stone dwellings, there could be a slightly better chance of finding
them, assuming they stacked the stone into walls, etc which would be un-mistakably
Just some thoughts for the moment...
Sun Mar 14 03:36:25 1999
Evidence of Homo Erectus? 1 found evidence of Homo Erectus? Were the past
scientists psychic? How did they know they would eventually find a Homo
Erectus so many many years later? Or is it a deformed skull that fits
the description of some text book written so many years ago? There has
yet to be found any evidence of evolution, it has been taught to us, and
we look for proof of it, but it has not been found as I believe such a
primative man does not exist. There are no links to evolution of man,
but eveyone wants to find it, to make the history books, to prove someone
right, but after all the past civilizations found, after all the bodies
of the past have been dug, and discovered, there has not been a prehistoric
evolving man discovered, and I know there won't be, unless it is fabricated,
or another mistaken ape skull or perhaps a deformed skull of a deformed
man. Would there not be more evidence of such,, just as dinosaurs have
been repeatedly discovered? I wish to finally ask you, why is evolution
being taught, when there has yet to be any evidence of it? Just upset
I guess and also wondering what the reponse will be, and I thank you for
your time and concideration. Thank you.
Sun Mar 14 05:50:30 1999
Mon Mar 15 02:18:38 1999
Still laughing at your response, ha ha ha. A friend of mine sent me to
this website,, and it is pretty kool, and it has concepts that I think
deserve a serious look at. I do not know if you have already seen the
page, but thought I would pass it on for you to have a look at. the address
is : http://www.thepump.org/built.html
And if you haven't been there, or heard of it,, you may find a surprise
as I did. I enjoyed the site very much, and hope you do too. PEACE :)
Mon Mar 15 19:56:13 1999
Aaaah... Water! Cool...
I've heard some similar information in the
past but now, finally I have the website to get more details. It seems
quite interesting... reminds me a bit of the modern day fellow from Hangzhou,
China who plans to straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa as he has already
straightened over 80 pagodas and other buildings throughout Asia.
Thanks for the link.
A little more info on Pisa
Mon Mar 15 20:09:36 1999
...just in case you were interested.
A summary of a news paper article from about
a month ago:
Seven hundred years of efforts have failed
to straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Now news from Hangzhou about
a man by the name of Cao Shizhong says he can do the job in 10 months.
For over 30 years he has righted more than 80 structures in China, ranging
from tottering pagodas to off-balance university buildings. His methods
are patented; his vehicle, the Slanting Building Correction Research Institute,
is based in the serene old capital of Imperial China.
Hmmm... This could be the start of another
thread if I am not careful.
Mon Mar 15 22:32:36 1999
Hi, Liangcheng, I am Chinese too. I think you are not a creationist right?
:). But I think Joe is probably a creationist or something like that.
:) "No links to Evolution of Man(including woman ???) ? " It all depends
on what is your definition of "links". Maybe you should tell scientists
your definition of "links", so they can try to prove that. I know creationists
won't believe evolution until someone to be sent back by time machine
and get a video tape of evolution, which is not possible to do. Do you
have evidence to prove that you have a grand-grand-grand-father? If his
corpse does not exist, does that mean your grand-grand-father was directly
created from dirt? No links to evolution of man? If I limit the definition
of links like you do, I can also say that there is no links between Middle
Age man and Modern man. If you have a mummified corpse, that does not
prove anything at all. Because it could just be a deformed Ape or Hitler
or just a big-frog deformed on large scale. :) Last point is to disprove
evolution can not prove creation. Micro-evolution has been observed in
labtory. But there is no evidence at all for creation.
Tue Mar 16 01:22:45 1999
What came first,, the chicken or the egg? Even then, if only one chicken
was born, how could it multiply itself? I would offer your own self as
evidence of creation, when even still, evolution had to begin with some
sort of creation. No matter what, from nothing, came something at some
point, (possibly). Should we label it creation? Or evolution of nothing
which became something? If we are all from the same omeba, or if many
life forms appeared at once, it can be labeled creation, or evolution.
I guess it depends on your definition. I was stating that there is no
evidence of evolution of man, it was a theory some one thought up to explain
where we came from, using logic based on evidence that leans towards such
an idea of "evolution". If we evolved from apes, there is no evidence
of it, and it can not be proved correct. It is also not possible to prove
that creation did not happen, but the fact that we are, leads towards
such an occurance, however I also agree, there is no way to prove that
it happened. Based on the evidence on hand, I am not a product of evolution,
as text books have taught me, and yet it is still being taught. Why can
we not "at least" be honest- we do not know where we came from, there
is no evidence, only words of a man who claims to have been the mouth
of God, and a man who imagined an occurance of evolution. I can prove
that the "evolutions" are wrong, right now, as they have no evidence to
back thier belief, but a scientist, or anyone, cannot prove that creation
did not happen, nor can anyone prove that it did happen, but I offer one
to look at one's own self as evidence that some form of creation had to
occur in order for one to even consider evolution to begin with, for even
thought is created before it evolves. :) thank you..
Tue Mar 16 09:21:59 1999
Evolution can be proved you psycho! It can be seen most profoundly in
lifeforms that have short life spans and reproduce quickly. How do you
think that some forms of bacteria are becoming immune to antibiotics?
You fundamentalist wacks always pull that
evolve from Apes crap. No one said we evolved from apes....Evolutionary
theory states that Apes and Humans have a common ancestor! How do you
explain the fact that Humans and Chimps are over 98% iditical genetically.
Furthermore, why do you find evolution so blasphemous? Why does it offend
you? I think it is a beautiful thing, in fact, if you want to take a religious
point of view, I find human evolution from ape-LIKE lifeforms much more
miraculous and God-like than two fig leafed clothed idiots running around
in a garden!
Tue Mar 16 11:55:10 1999
For joe's question about chicken and egg, of course egg came first. If
there is a first chicken, it multiplied itself by mating with that kind
of bird which it evolved from. Let's call that kind of bird pre-chicken.
Pre-chicken is very similar to chicken, but it is not a chicken. Among
their children, there will be both chickens and pre-chickens. If chickens
are superior to pre-chickens, then they have a bigger chance of surviving.
Obviously the first chicken came from the chicken egg. The chicken egg
is laid by a pre-chicken. Of course many primitive chemical life forms
can appear in short time. The life forms are very likely produced with
thunder striking at sea chemicals. And there will be a lot of strikes
everyday on earth. You said there is no evidence for evolution. How do
you explain the micro-evolution observed by scientists in lab? Your last
logic is funny :). You can disprove evolution, because you do not know
the evidence or can not understand the evidence. You can prove creation,
because you do not know the evidence to disprove it. Suppose there is
no evidence to disprove creation,(although there are a great deal), that
does not prove creation at all. If I tell you, I am from China. Do you
have evidence to disprove that? Does that prove I am from China?
Tue Mar 16 12:05:31 1999
Well, I am not out to win any war of beliefs, since beliefs make up who
we are, along with the knowledge of death which lurks to also create a
persons character (in my belief). I apologize for causing a fuss, as I
can see now that is what I have done. I do wish to question your idea
of bacteria becoming immune, thus calling it (evolution), though I would
agree it evolved an immune system, I myself would not call it evolution.
I only say that because once I had the mumps and I developed an immunity,
just as I do with other diseases, but, I do not think that means I have
evolved, but, I could be wrong. I must correct myself as far as my beliefs
concerning evolution, as I stated that I am not aware of any facts that
prove that we evolved, only evidence. Really what we are dealing with,,
is intelligence, and perhaps even egos. It is impossible for me to prove
that a layer of soil is (1 million- 100) years old, and I do not believe
anyone else can prove that it is that old. Since we know that there was
a large extintion of Dinosaurs and wildlife, it is possible that time
did not occur as it does now. 1 day then, could have equaled 100 years
today, and I only state this based on (evidence) of a prehistoric, and
unmentioned atmosphere which may have existed that protected the Earth
from UV light, free radicals,, and what not. If there was a layer of water
that once covered the Earth in the form of ice, and the Earth had a different
rotation, it would lend one to consider that 1 day could have been a very
very long time. The dinosaurs had small lungs? Flying reptiles could not
fly in our current atmosphere? I tend to believe such an atmosphere did
exist, and that this atmosphere would explain animal size, biological
functions and differences, and even the "Great flood",, which is recorded/documented
to have happened by many races of humans on Earth, by scientists who study
the Earth layers, and yes by the Bible. If we as humans existed during
this time, we would most c ertainly have been different creatures, and
perhaps we have adapted to this current world. This may be called,, "evolution".
However, to say that these early humans were previously something else,
and then something before that? Eventually you end up with an occurance,,
a happening,, a creation? Or am I mis-naming what I could also call evolution?
Even evolution has to begin somewhere, yes? From nothing, came something--,,
to consider that life has always existed would lead one into quite a state
of mind, but we all agree to some degree that life or all life did occur
at one given moment, and whether it is named "creation" or "evolution"
is up to the individual I suppose. I would be much happier to hear the
"truth",, which is,, "We do not know where we came from",, since, it is
honest and it is a fact,-- there are no real facts to say where we came
from, only evidence and (faith)?. PEACE++++ :)
Tue Mar 16 14:44:29 1999
Well Joe, You're obviously having trouble understanding what the concept
of evolution entails. If you developed an immunity to Mumps; that does
not entail evolution, that would simply be the development of an immunity.
You are simply one living organism, you cannot evolve. However, bacteria
that develop immunities to antibiotics and pass this trait on to their
offspring soon create a strain of bacteria with the inherited trait of
immunity to antibiotics, This IS evolution. You should pay more attention
to scientific texts.
Now, since all living groups of organisms
go through evolution, why do you have trouble with the fact that we human
beings have gone through it as well. How do you account for humanoid remains
found by scientists? I will grant you that piecing together the puzzle
of human evolution is tricky and that we do not have all of the answers,
but what we do have is a much more logical, plausible, and more sound
paradigm that your explaination of POOF! here we are.
I'll also grant you that if we follow evolution
back to its beginning, we are still left with something and the question
of where did that something come from. You may call it God others may
call it something else-Platonic Philosophy calls it the unmoved mover.
However, it is a large step from this to an
anthropomorphic God that creates Mankind. Why did he/she create other
humanoid figures and let them die out, and then create Man?
Evolution is a scientific fact, we may not
be sure of all the conditions, methods, and branches, but living things
do go through evolution over time. Why fight this natural thing?
My two cents (squeezed in)
Tue Mar 16 17:10:58 1999
In my opinion 'Crevo' discussions are an exercize in endless futility.
Wed Mar 17 02:35:28 1999
Well, I just wrote a whole thing regarding the responses to my message,
and POOF,, it was gone. I wish to first comment on the chicken deal,,
heh.. To make a short question eternal,, "What came first, the pre-chicken,
or the egg"? I was giving an example of redundancy, not asking a real
question, but good answer. I know the story of evolution, first an omeba,
which reproduced itself, then spread into other environments, and adapted
(evolved) to survive that environment, and those offspring spread into
other environments, and did the same thing, and became opposite sexs,
and different creatures, which continued to do the same, which makes me
and this fly that is buggin me right now,, relatives. Me and the mumps
are cousins. A certain plant needs a certain insect to do a certain thing,
and the insect needs that plant for a certain thing, one cannot survive
without the other. The plant makes leaves that the insect eats, as it
spreads the reproductive components of the plant to other plants that
recieve them. This insect needs this plant for food, that plant needs
that insect for reproduction and perhaps food too, since the insect produces
waste which the plant consumes,, they are like one being, yet seperated,
and are totally different life forms, how did this evolve? It sounds like
design to me, but I will except that I am wrong when it is showed to me.
This "natural thing" that you call it, is a process, which occurs because?
Survival? Evolution? I do not know, I have not said that I was a creationist,
you have labeled me as such. Judgement was, "guilty as charged",, "guilty
until proven innocent", well perhaps you thought I was judging you, which
I suppose I was. I did not claim to be evolutionist, creationist, anti
evolutionist, or anything. Evidence can lead to many directions, you chose
one, and defend it, I do not choose, and I question it,, no problem..
Wed Mar 17 03:00:23 1999
All of what I wrote in the first place is gone, which reaks havoac on
my brain to have to reconstruct what I stated. I perhaps made it too long,
but I remembered also, that there is evidence of UFO's, Aliens, and perhaps
we are products of manipulated DNA, or maybe or relation with the apes,
may just be because we were born on the same planet. I can't help it,,
everything you said is a load of crap. I didn't want to argue, but, gee,
you just don't get my point, and you labeled me,, and you refered to me
as a "creationist" and didn't even read what I wrote. Just because a strain
of bacteria becomes immune, and passes that trait to it's offspring, does
not conclude that I evolved from a bug or an ape. There are no evolutionary
transitions between any animals, there are extinct animals, and living
animals, many animals are similar, but remain to themselves as a species
unique, and may crossbreed, but in Nature,, crossbreeds typically are
not welcome or recognized by it's own or either species, and becomes an
alien, an outcast, and does not survive, or reproduce with other crossbreeds,
but, odds are odds, and it could (have) happen(ed) I suppose at some point
in the animal kingdom. Anyway, you are saying that all animals evolved,
but this is not fact, and everything you have brought up so far is "evidence",
"theory" and there are no facts. Just because a chameleon changes color,
doesn't mean that an owl can. But of coarse,, you may reply,, some more
crap about scientific "text", which is also based on evidence, ideas,
theories,, while the spiritual "text" has all the same ingredients. I
never at any point said awwwwwwwwww,, what's the use,, Liangcheng--- I
must agree with you, but I must also attempt to be understood,, even if
I confuse myself doing it,, hahaa.. I stand where I stand, and do not
choose what way is right, since evidence, theories, and "text" can go
in many directions,, just as my own did..
Sat Mar 27 01:17:41 1999
"What if" an Ultra civilazation did indeed exisit. I believe there was
infact one.I believe it to be connected to egypt. there is a great book
you should read by Graham Hancok,"Fingerprints of the Gods". He expores
this subject indepth.. I believe that archaeologists have alteady stumbled
onto this but refuse to see what is right in front of them case in point:the
Sphinx found to be water eroded not wind eroded. there is evedence sitting
in front of us that we refuse to look at and untill we open our minds
im afraid that we will never know.
Sat Mar 27 18:44:25 1999
I think that it is high time that somebody defines the word "civilization."
_The American Heritage Dictionary_ defines "civilization" as: "An advanced
stage of development in the arts and sciences accompanied by corresponding
social, political, and cultural complexity." _The Concise Oxford Dictionary_
defines it as: "An advanced stage or system of social development." One
might expect an oral or a written tradition or pictographs (like hieroglyphics)
as a prerequsite for such a designation as "civilization." One would expect
to find a culture. Wandering nomads do not make a civilization by themselves.
Early hominids were not members of civilizations.
One needs a written or oral tradition and a complexity of society and
culture to use such a term as "civilization."
Of course, there are other, less exact definitions
of civilization but I prefer explicit definition over vague opinions.
Sat Mar 27 22:06:14 1999
have you read the full sphynx thread?
I post some explanations about the water erosion.
And some point about "the finger...".
simply, most of the "evidence" can't be taken
very seriosuly. In the book, Hancok simply ignores the explanations he
does not like, instead of refuting them.
It's just another book, in the line of "chariots
of the Gods" by Daniken.
Sun Mar 28 14:26:32 1999
Javier.d, i may have gone overboard a bit with Hancok, I in no way take
to all of his theories. there was alot of REACHING in that book.. I do
beleive the sphynx to be older and the pyramids of giza as well. But im
noy buying the whole super race of people either..had a bit of wine when
i wrote that sorry! i havent read the thread but im interested in any
material connected to the ancient egyptians, olmecs, mayans, ect.. hancoks
latest project is our past with mars so im a little nixed on him. I guess
im interested more in the how did they do it and why theories.. and as
far as chariots of the gods..there are theories and there are delusions,chariots
is deffinately the latter.
Sun Mar 28 23:13:16 1999
There is still to much to know 70 years ago, hittites and Sumerian were
unknown, except for a few references.
The archeology has uncovered so many wonders,
but its a slow work.
But also there is too much noise.
I found more marvellous the slow but continuous
uncovering by Dr. Hawas of the remains of the common people and workers
of the Pyramids, with their ways of life. The grafities of the builder
of the pryramids, their bread and beer factories etc. this is better than
the fireworks of Hancok.
Mon Mar 29 01:02:04 1999
javierd, i respect hawas. i find him to be the most informative and authoritive
on egypt today. My interest lies in the orion cult, the oldest religion
to date..i find it funny the similiarities between our "jesus" figurehead
and the osiris god a man in the suggested white rob, preaching peace at
a time of civil unrest,sporting the beard ,as drawn in history with both
jesus and osiris. both tortured and died, but comming back to life to
save their people. Im not suggesting a Hancok theory, i just find it funny
how the savior factor keeps cropping up..it was a similiarity i found
to funny to ignore...no response needed..
Mon Mar 29 01:09:41 1999
I must say i have read your other postings and responses javier, and i
have really enjoyed them, i find it refreshing to listen to someone who
is based on evidence and not caught up in the "what if's" as i have been
Mon Mar 29 17:21:04 1999
I don't know much about osiris, but you should
read something about Mitra. he born in 24 of december, He died, he came
back from the dead.
His followers have a dinner fro celebrations,
where the gave bread and wine.
It was very popular bewteen Romans about 2000
We have an interesting thread on pyramids
about a year ago, so i save it , there are many interesting links there,
you can find it at
Tue Mar 30 11:02:27 1999
i believe atlantes did exest simpely because of similar cultures on both
sides of the alantic and i think it exested right were it was described
to be past the pillars of hercules of course that could be anywere in
the atlantic for when it was written of the earth was consederd flat so
to them if ever exested it had to be right off futherest point of land.
i would like to know if there has been any civalization with writen skills
descoverd that exested before the sumarens
Tue Mar 30 16:37:01 1999
There are three problems.
The similaritis are not conclusive.
The pillars of Hecules were not in Gibraltar.
This is a modern reference.
The map of the submarine mountains in the
Atlantic does not show any place where the mythic Atlantis could had been.
There is another interpretation of Atlantis.
But i think that qualifies for another thread.
Wed Mar 31 09:58:28 1999
javierd i think pyramids in mexeco and egypt is pretty conclusive what
are the odds of two completly different civalizations separated by that
much distance could have the same culture. as for there being no proof
of alantis along the under water mountains if huge cataclysm happend as
was discribed and crack opened underneth atlantis it could have fell into
that crack and when said crack closed up it could have caused the mountians.
Wed Mar 31 11:51:09 1999
How about Science lonnie? Ever hear of it? Civilizations on different
sides of the world also developed speech and some form of clothing; is
that CONCLUSIVE proof of the existence of Atlantis?
The "idea" of a pyramid does not have to
be passed on. Any culture pileing rocks on top of each other is bound
to "discover" a pyramid shape. Maybe Mountains were the inspiration, humans
wanted to build there own mountains....does that mean that Atlantis discovered
Mountains and placed them all over the world. Come to us with some scientific
research and keep your bed time stories between you and your mommy.
Sun Apr 4 11:33:46 1999
heard that mind close from here in case you havent heard the exchange
of thougt is science and just because something isn't in your wittle science
book doesn't mean doesn't exest and just because you cant nock something
dowen don't stike your thump in your mouth and pout
Sun Apr 4 21:06:27 1999
One thing which puzzles me:
Hominids have been on this planet for more
than a million years. Why is it that our 'civilizations' seemed to have
sprung up all at once (give or take 1000 years) all over the planet?
In this million+ year time frame the sudden
development of 'civilizations' throughout the world seems much too unlikely
without some form of contact between these remotely scattered civilizations.
Any ideas on this?
Tue Apr 6 12:19:46 1999
Homo sapiens has been here for almost 100,000 years, and most of his time
it was as hunter ghaterer (not sure about the spelling).
Altough we are uses to thing of primitive
man as a hunter, Louis Leaky, found that this kind of society recolect
about 75% of his food, and only 25% from hunting. But the worst part is
that they dedicate about 30 hours a week for this.
So we lost the 30 hours week about 10,000
Ussually the agriculture is seen as the seed
that started all. Since a sedentary people, can acumulate wealth. But
Agriculture requieres much more work per week.
So something had to happen to replace hunting
and recolecting, all sing, low work life with agriculture.
The curious part is that it seem to have
started a at the same time in several parts of the world.
Sumer, the indo Valley, Tehuacan valley, in
Mexioc, are some of the older places, about 10,000 yers ago.
This is an interesting mistery.
Tue Apr 6 12:25:09 1999
As i see, pyramids between Egypt and America
are to much disimilar in form, function, and too much separated in time
and space to have an comoon origin.
And remember, is good to have an open mind...
but not so open that your brain slips trough it :))
or as the other saying says.
Extraoirdinary claims, requiere extraordinary
So, get tyour data, coment it, and share with
And have fun.
Tue Apr 6 16:40:01 1999
Very Interesting discussion. I LIke the openess of thought. I Have suspected
that perhaps the advent of agriculture might be correlated to the extinction
of the great, giant mammals. Such animals as the mammoths must have provided
weeks of food for a group of humans numbering 20- 50 individuals. The
disappearance of such food sources must have created questions both practical
and religious in nature. Agriculture was obviously a successful solution
to the practical question of food. The transition from a primarily hunting
organization to a primarily agricultural society may well have taken centuries.
Such a change may well have occurred without input from some "older" and
more scientifically knowledgable society. If one looks at the Indians
of North America, one can see the integration of hunting, and planned
rotation farming, applied in a manner which should have beed self sustaing,
if not for the interference of outside forces. The apparent applied intelligence
of such an arrangement is worthy only of respect. The Question I think
becomes- why do farmers need a written language, when hunter-gatherers
do not? In a word, could it be - TAXES? Ah - I become cynical. Well, what
do you think?
Wed Apr 7 16:11:14 1999
not taxes, but something almost as dreadfull...
The oldest records known, are not poetry,
literature or anything like that.
They are accounts. At first, it was with beads,
or tokens. One for each good, or animal. In Sumeria, they were sealed
in clay envoelopes and sent, so show the numbers of trnasactions, but
they had to be broken to be counted later, so signs were used. Later the
signs replace the tokens, and writing was born.
This of course is very interesting to archeologis,
because it shows the organization and economy of ancient civilizations.
But, it boring for the rest of the world.
So this accouns are rarely published.
Sun Apr 11 09:17:33 1999
Estimado señor Delgado: It was Carl Sagan who said: "Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof". I just wanted to give credit where
credit is due. This comment brings me to the point I was making in the
"Archaeology conversation", earlier today, about peer review. Anyone can
claim anything, but unless you present supporting evidence to survive
the criticism of the professional community in your field (peer review)
your hypothesis is fried. Armaetno
Sun Apr 11 14:52:26 1999
thank you armaetno,
This is one of my favorite cites, but i did
not now where it come from.
and this reminds me of another of my favorite
cites. ( i think it's form Max Planck)
"How many times your beautiful theory is destroyed
by one little and ugly fact." :-)
saludos Javier Delgado
Tue Apr 13 01:13:44 1999
javierd you are right but though there is no hard evadence of atlantis
exestance i cant help but wonder what proof of our exestance should we
expereance a major catoclesem our books burnd our buildens of wood and
metel burned melted all of our information on computers totely destroed
would anybody believe we exested 10000 years from now
Tue Apr 13 13:02:18 1999
in 10,000 years, the footprints of Neil Amstrong would still beas good
as new, and the voyager series will still be 20,000 years to reach another
But in the case of atlantis we have much less.
The leyend of Atlantis comes from a ales of
Palot, that he said he took from Egyptinas priest, and... thats all, no
artifacts, no other confirmation form other spurces etc.
Even the account by Plato, does not try to
present an historical fact, but it has a moral intention.
Now, the acount has some resemblance to what
we know now about Creta. They speak a dialect of greek, and had the same
gods, so the later greeks took much of their culture from them, and they
had a great catastophe when the thera volcan exploded.
Their civilization did not end with thera,
it last a copule of centuries more, so some scholars don't like to credit
the legend to Crete.
But there is eough similarities to start a
legend, and this are true fats. And so far are the only we have.
Thu Apr 15 16:48:07 1999
Thera or crete cannot be Atlantis.The story told to Plato has more meaning
than people give it credit for.It tells of an island which existed many
great years before even the Egyptian culture florished.In fact it could
be that Egypt was a descendant of the survivors of Atlantis as is told
in many cultures all over the world which according to expert opinion
had no contact with until Columbus. Atlantis was beyond the pillars of
Hercules which at that time was the straits of Gibralter,this doesn't
actually mean that a great big island sat in the Atlantic but could mean
a different continent or a land mass so big it was not charted by archaic
sailors.Antartica has been mapped on old maps shown in a time when it
was free of ice the shape of the island is identical to that shown by
surveys done to asertain a map of Antartica as it would be free of ice.The
fact that maps already existed showing this many hundreds of years ago
has caused experts some embarassment and they pass it of as a fake or
just ignore it completely,they don't want to accept that man has existed
for tens of thousands of years and possesed an ancient knowledge which
has been lost. At the time of say 1200 bc Antartica may not have been
where it is today.In fact the whole earth was totally different,Antartica
may have been in a more temperate climate and thusly would have been in
the Atlantic ocean,the earths magnetic poles shift and reverse causing
upheavals to the earths crust.This is known as crust displacement and
could have occured during this time,dragging Antartica down to it's currnt
location.The sudden onset of the iceage supports this.
Thu Apr 15 20:58:09 1999
For Antartica to have moved that quickly due to plate tectonics, I don't
think any civilization would have survived that kind of calamity. I suppose
maybe the axis of the Earth's rotation may have shifted more during this
time but still not enough to account for this either. If Antartica was
ever clear of ice during this 'recent' past, the only thing I could imagine
to be responsible for this would be some kind of change in ocean and air
currents where warmth from the tropics were brought towards that area
during that time, but ice core samples don't suggest this ever occured
There are underwater pyramid-like structures
off the coast of Okinawa which have recently been explored but no *confirmation*
as to their age has been established yet.
Fri Apr 16 13:15:01 1999
But they did survive by leaving and colonising other lands.Egypt and maybe
south America all have the same influences,pyramids,star religions,an
ancient science.There is an arachaic account of the earth shifting on
it's axis.They call it the time when the stars fell out of place.All markers
on earth and the sky moved and appeared to fall from view. This too supports
the archaic floods which litter ancient stories,they talk of the earth
shifting and the waters rising. Scientists have taken geophysical surveys
which allow them to map the land mass beneath the ice.The land map they
drew up matches almost identicaly to the ancient maps of hundreds of years
ago.These maps show the flow of rivers and lakes which are now frozen
under the ice,when the scientists did this themselves they saw the same
rivers and lakes in the same places as on the ancient maps concluding
that the source maps must have come from a time when Antartice was free
of ice.How else could they have seen the land mass and mapped it so acurately?.
The pryamid structures off Japan too support the idea of ancient civilizations
colonising the world.The great ships found at Giza prove that they were
capable of building ships which could travel the great oceans of the world.If
people had to flee from a great catyclism they would have taken their
knowledge with them and influenced other cultures.All ancient civilizations
speak of a builder God who brought great knowledge and wisdom.The structures
if man-made simply means that the same civilization reached Japan. These
structures would have been on land in 10,500 bc,the same time quated as
the orion belt pyramid formation and the time of a water weathered sphinx.
Fri Apr 16 13:55:45 1999
The presense of pyramid shaped structureas
in different parts of the world is NOT evidence of a cultural contact
or some ancient civilization teaching them how to build one.
Every ancient civilization made some sort
of pot to hold items in also. Does this mean that some Ancient civilization
from Atlantis went around the world teaching others cultures how to make
pots!?! Come on, use some rationality!
You've also showed some classical misinterpretations
of Plato's work also. In his day, the Pillars of Hercules were in the
Agean, not the straits of Gibraltar. And, it is believed that the original
interpretation of Atlantis' location in Plato's work was "between Africa
and Asia". This would leave your Antarctic theory in shambles.
Finally, there is NO, NONE, ABSOLUTELY NO,
NADA evidence to support an advanced civilization in the time period that
Atlantis is belived by some to exist. We do however have much archaeological
evidence from ALL over the world for primitive (I don't mean this in a
pejoritive sense) hunter-gatherer societies at this time period. Follow
the evidence guys, it'll usually lead you in a better direction than some
Fri Apr 16 16:45:30 1999
The account told to Plato by Solon goes that 'the Egyptian priests who
said that mysterious people from a place called Atlantis had invaded much
of the mediterranean as well as Egypt some nine thousand years ago and
records still survive in Egypt.' From the time of Plato nine thousand
years would fit in the right time line.Also we are not talking about pots,pyramids
are totally different. The pillars of Hercules may refer to a palace that
once stood one the edge of Crete.Wether this is the straits of Gibralter
or not is always up for debate but the passage reads 'BEYOND' the pillars,implying
that Atlantis once existed further than the pillars no matter where they
are.Also if Atlantis is between Africa and Asia then presumibly it would
still be there as those land masses are pretty big you could hardly lose
them. If there was no advanced civilcization before 5,000 bc how do you
explain the sudden arrival of civilization?.A complete writing system,advanced
mathematics,the ability to produce mind boggling structures from your
primitive hunter gatherers. Antartica holds many strange particles in
it's ice.Frozen specimens of trees and leaves,pollen and flowers have
been found in the ice when they should not have been according to expert
opinion.they have no explaination of how they got there but if antartica
was once temperate then they would have grown naturally. If you take the
time to read the 'old stories' you would see a completely new picture
emerge,the myths that so many people dismiss hold vital information about
ancient man and the way of archaic times. Also don't be so quick to heap
praise on archaoeologists,when they find something they can't explain
they either dismiss it or ignore it as Flinders-petrie did and he's concidered
the father of Egyptology. Why would ancient peoples go to so much trouble
to erect their monuments which show a star pattern of 10'500 bc unless
it meant something.It's happened in Egypt,Cambodia and South America can
they really all be coincidences that all these ancient peoples built pyramids
just like that for no reason?.
Mon Apr 19 05:43:34 1999
bravo amiodhi and cheesey you speak of old stories and bedtime stories
well if we listen more to our ancesters old stories maybe we would be
Mon Apr 19 10:30:39 1999
OK Smart ^$$! You're right, we should pay more attention to the stories
of our ancestors. The only problem is determining what they intended their
stories to be. Since Plato's story of Atlantis reads as a morality tale,
most scholars assume that this is what it was intended to be. But, hey
I'm sure with all of your advanced university ducation in Ancient Greek
you and Lonnie know better. OK and hey, what about Jonathan Swift's tales
of Gulliver's Travels. I belive that there may really be a land called
Lilliput with people about two inches high. Why not, he wrote it down
IT MUST BE TRUE!!! Camelot must really be somewhere also, I bet we can
fund Excalibur and maybe the Holy GRail is there!
The sudden apprearance of civilization!!!
I cannot believe you made such a statement! What is your educational background?
There is well documented archaeological evidence of the gradual immersion
of civilization from small settelements experimenting with agricultural
to the development of walled cities to monument builders.
Come out from left field amiodhi; the inning
is over and you team lost!
Mon Apr 19 12:56:33 1999
it seems as if you have been reading too much
There is to much to say, taht i don't know
where to start but.
The simmilitud of the pyrmids is more aparent
than you think.
What is the more similar natural structure
similar to a pyramid?.
A mountaint, and no civilization has an exclusivity
on mountains. In the thread of the shape of pyramids i wrote the egyptian
account of the shape of the pyramids. In Mexico, for example you can find
civilizations like Cuicuilco, Tehotihuacan, and Mayas, that had almost
no contact btween them and developed their own kind of pyramid (round
in the case of cuicuilco). But their have very diferent shapes.
And archeologist don't hide what they not
understand, they jump of rejoice because it's they way to fame. They are
hummans and can be hard head edsometimes but remember the moto of science:
Publish or perish.
Show me a maya record, Theotihuacan, olmec
etc. tahat show a star pattern of 10,500 BC. they were spledind astronomers,
but the oldest maya dates is about 3000 BC .
The theory of water erosion, is only one
of several explications to the erosion of the sphynx.
The material of which is made the sphynx is
soo diverse that any attempt to date it based on erosion will failed.
But his knowdlege seem to be conveniently
forget in most books on the theme.
And as cheesey said, civilization did not
start sudenly. They evolved very slowly at first, in Summer there is evidence
of almost 1000 years of civilizations before the first city started.
Agriculture changed the way hummans lived
for hundred of years but te change was not sudden,.
And the old map (you are speaking of Piris
Rey, isn't it) Does not coincide with the shape of antartida, unless they
are subjeted to several "corrections" and several assumptions are made.
So Hardly they can be taken as proofs.
The old stories should had to bee studied,
but always with a grain of salt.
For example the hittite empire was compleely
forgoten, except for a couple of references in the Bible.
This leed to the discoverring of and ancient
civiliation, and to discover that the references in the Bible had nothing
to do with it ..!
Schliemman discovered Troya, but the archeology
discovered a more complex history that the one that leed him to it.
So may it happen with Atlantis. It's interesting,
but we can take it very literally.
Mon Apr 19 14:20:12 1999
For a start I have never read Von Daniken.He speaks of aliens shaping
the world and that is something I do not agree on. Ok so the pyramids
were shaped to look like mountains that is neither here nor there the
problem is how and why build them in the first place.The Egyptian pryamids
resemble orion,the temples of Cambodia resemble draco and the temples
in south America are believed to map the solar system.Not only that but
the Mayans or Aztecs whatever all held the plaides and venus as their
God stars is this a coincidence that these stars were also revererd by
the ancient mesopotaminans? who lived thousands of years and miles from
each other. when I talk of civilization I mean the arrival of writing
and maths not simple farming.The development of farming and the improvment
of homes from caves to houses can be seen but the arrival of writing can't.The
oldest recorded writing from Egypt was a clay tablet with a wine order
written on it dating from the reign of King scorpian or nemes.So you want
me to believe that suddenly one day the king picked up a clay tablet and
wrote his shopping list out and of course everyone understood perfectly?.
The aruguement about the sphinx will never be solved until we can acuratly
date stone but to trot out the same story of the sphinx being carved of
poor quality stone beggers belief.For a start name a pharaoh who would
accept a monument like the sphinx and still think it was ok if it was
made so poorly.If the stone is so poor the sphinx would have weathered
away to nothing several hundred years ago.It hasn't,it's still there.
There are two mysteries still to be solved.If the two worlds,new and old,
were so isolated as to evade contact until Columbus so did cocaine get
into Egypt?.Several Egyptian mummies have been found to contain cocaine
a substance which was only grown in south America so what took it there?,a
gust of wind?.Maybe it's got something to do with those massive ocean
going ships found near the pyramids. What of the Olmec heads? giant heads
which have African features and look nothing like native Americans also
stone carvings of white men with beards how could native indians know
what beards are,they can not grow facial hair.How do they know what Africans
look like unless they had actualy seen them?. THIS DEBATE IS FAR FROM
OVER CHEESY AND I'M UP TO BAT AGAIN.
Mon Apr 19 23:30:58 1999
First off, Solon lived during the early part of the 6th century BCE, so
there is no way that he told Plato anything (since he lived in the late
5th and early 4th century BCE). Plato was presenting a moral allegory
and he put it in the mouth of one of the Greeks' "7 Sages". Plato also
created many other myths or allegorical tales, that and dialectical conversations
were his preferred method of presenting his philosophical ideas. Second,
writing didn't just pop up all of a sudden. It began as simple marks representing
numbers, or pictures representing things. These were later short-handed
to a symbol representing the initial sound of the thing that the letter
represented, for example: The Greek letter 'mu' was adapted from the Phonoecian
alphabet where it represented the initial sound for their word for water.
This process was not sudden. The 'arrival' of writing is not 'seen' because
it was for a very long time extremely rudimentary. If it was carved in
stone and it survived weathering then we would have remnants, which we
do in some cases. But, for instance, the Sumerians generally wrote their
cuneiform accounts on clay tablets, which are relatively soft and therefore
easily reused. This also means they rarely survived. The Egyptian papyri
only survived because of Egypts extremely dry climate, but the manuscripts
we have today are extremely fragile. Just look at all the trouble they
had trying to piece together the crumbling shreds of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As for why all these widespread civilizations 'revered' the Pleiades and
Venus, maybe because they looked up in the sky and thought they were pretty
amazing. I'm not famliar with Mayan (or Aztec) astrology, but I'd be willing
to bet their version of who and what the Pleiades represent is quite different
from what the Greeks believed. What is the source of all these "facts"
you mention that "experts" can't explain?
Tue Apr 20 10:44:53 1999
I would like to address the comment that Lonnieshiv wrote on April 13
asking what would be left of our civilisation perished in a giant catastrophe
and all buildings and monuments were destroyed. The first source of information
for archaeologists is, believe it or not, trash. Most of the time went
we are digging, the midden is nothing else than a refuse heap, and the
buildings are ruins. Rarely do we find "treasures"; people normally don't
throw away valuable articles. What we are looking for is "data", information,
about the way of life of a people, not "treasures" as such. So, if anybody
survived and after many years Archaeology was reborn, I'm pretty confident
that my future fellow archaeologists would find and learn about us.
Most of the discussion in this conversation
runs around the myth or legend of Atlantis. Now, one thing all of you
must take into account is (even if it was a true story) that Plato is
not a primary source for Atlantis, meaning he never was there, he never
met an Atlantean, nor read any of their documents. According to his account,
he learned of Atlantis from Solon, who learned the story from an Egyptian
priest. Now, given the time involved in the passing of the story from
one person to another (as MJM properly points out), we don't know thru
how many other mouths the story passed. In other words Plato's story is
at best hearsay. Further more, as Amlodhi pointed out there were other
"Pillars of Hercules" in the Agean (maybe it was a term applied to a geographical
feature, like "morro" in Spanish).
Listen, in the early days of Archaeology,
in 19th century, many archaeologists believed that the only way to explain
the American civilisations was by Diffusion, the passing of cultural traits
from places like Egypt, Babylon and Atlantis to the "primitive Indians".
This was based, in part, on what we would call racial bias. How else could
inferior peoples, like the Indians, develop high cultures and civilisations?
(The same was said of Zimbabwe in Southern Africa.) Yet, as the years
passed and more and more information was collected, the evidence mounted
against the Diffusionist view point and, despite the "Ra Expeditions",
it was pushed aside (A clear example of peer review). Do we know all the
answers? No, absolutely not. That is why we keep on digging and doing
One more thing, Mr. Daniken, author of "Chariots
of the Gods" and other such nonsense, is not and has never been an archaeologists.
He has no formal training in this field, and has never presented his work
for proper review to the proffesional community. The proper term for him
is Quack. Armaetno
A funny thought... you deserve a break today.
Tue Apr 20 18:32:16 1999
I'm curious what future archeologists would think of the remains of all
the many McDonalds playlands?
Temples to some unknown gods? *smile*
Sorry, I could'nt resist.
Wed Apr 21 07:06:42 1999
In his book, Heaven's Mirror,Graham Hancock, has located intriguingly
similar ruins which are precisly positioned around the planet according
to mathematical principles based on precession. These are located in exact
relation to each other. If I quote partial facts here I suspect I'll eventually
end up reprinting most of the book in response to challenges, so I suggest
that those who are truly interested read the book. The scholarship is
impressive (trust me on this. I do not suffer fools gladly). For the more
robust among you I suggest Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santilana and Hertha
vov Dechend. The math is impressive. I think the evidence points strongly
to an unknown pre-historic civilization. ps amlodhi-keep at it. Beliefs
do not change easily.
Wed Apr 21 09:58:28 1999
Get real Walley!
We've already discussed the credentials of
Mr. Hancock on several strings here. He has NO formal training as an Archaeologist
or Anthropologist, and he has already recounted some of his so-called
theories when presented with documented evidence (i.e., he retracted his
statement about the Great Pyramid not being built by Egyptians). He bases
his conclusion of far fetched theories and backs them up with convoluted
"evidence". I could do a mathmatical analysis of the geographical positions
of New York, Tokyo, and Peoria if I wanted and then "prove" to you that
the conclusions show evidence of Alien Lifeforms! That proves nothing.
Where is you hard evidence? You have none. Give me a break!
Wed Apr 21 14:36:26 1999
It'd true that people like Graham Hancock have made some concessions.But
that doesn't mean that they are entirely wrong.You cannot deny that there
is alot of strange goings on that can not be explained by conventional
means.I think that maybe Hancock et al are fed up at being brow beaten
as so many have before.It is true that some scholars have chosen not to
publish the truth for fear of backlash from their peers.Take the case
of John Allegro who worked on the dead sea scrolls.He knew that something
wasn't right with the translation and withholding of the texts so he went
ahead and published his own papers concerning the whole translation.He
was immediatly sent to coventry and was the subject of vicious mockings
and media put-downs.He was subsequently sacked by his bosses and never
taken seriously again.If that is the fate of scholars who dare to step
out of line then it's no wonder that people choose to remain silent. Even
though some people have recanted their original statements I still do
firmly believe that there is a hidden knowledge that does remain intact
in archaic myth.I have almost finished reading Hamlets Mill and although
it's heavy at times the overall picture is pretty clear.All the myths
have a common origin,all over the world the same themes pop up and although
under a different name we can still see parralels in myths from Babylon
to New Zealand. The idea that the voyage of odyseus and the Argonauts
could be a telling of cosmic events makes for interesting thinking.The
concept of the earths axis being thought of as an ancient mill churning
out time makes sense when the Gods in this case planets where thought
to be immortal was not this a concept of the unending movments of time?.
When the sky fell and all the stars fell does not this tell us that something
happened to move the axis and break the mill?.It's very clever and when
you think about it alot of things make sense.
Wed Apr 21 19:49:33 1999
I have more respect for someone who recants theories in the face of evidence
than those who refuse to examine it. Personally, I do have experience
and formal training regarding the workings of the educational system and
credentials do not always mean very much on the frontier. The guy who
invented the car radio and the Learjet had no credentials or former training.
If he had gone to university, he probably would have acquired the conventional
knowledge that it was not possible to build a radio small enough to fit
in a car. Hancock is pioneering in interdisciplinary research, which according
to the way that we constitute knowledge, puts him in an excellent place
to have a breakthrough. Mavericks like Hancock have determined many of
the directions that have resulted in our present lofty state. Lets go
way out on a limb and made predictions: (1) within 20 years Hancock will
be acknowledged as having made an important contribution. (2) at that
time, it will be difficult to find people who remember that they discounted
him. Actually, I'm betting on my own track record of sorting out the wheat
from the chaff in the face of knowledgable opposition. Time will tell;
let's wait and see.
Thu Apr 22 14:33:18 1999
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Where is your proof? Not conjecture, not some reference to an old story
no one can validate-give me proof!
Thu Apr 22 16:43:19 1999
Knowledge can be seen as an inverted pyramid.
What we know today is based and expands on what we knew yesterday. When
an archaeologists presents the results of his (or her) research, his interpretation
is based on many years of studies and work. We are not magicians, pulling
explanations out of hats. Archaeology is a science and as such it has
a method and structure, which must be followed by its practitioners. Anyone
can talk or write about "Archaeology", but if the proper methodology is
not followed, then all claims are suspect.
Walley, I don't know Hancock's work (Cheesy
seems to be the expert), but his "theories" sound quite "quacky" to me.
Archaeologists don't hide from facts, the question should be why some
"researchers" refuse to submitt their findings, and the evidence to support
it, for peer (professional) review. What are they hidding?
If any of you is interested in learning about
real Anthropology, which includes Archaeology, I'm more than willing to
Thu Apr 22 17:59:48 1999
tell me how he constelation of orion resembles
Constelations are groups of stars, but thyeir
grouping is completely subjective. I remeber the firts time y try to find
contelations in the sky, i just could not undersand where thouse beatifull
drawinds of mithological monster could be seen in the sky.
And the only think in common that we can be
shure if taht for all ancient civilizations astronomy or astrology was
important for their lives, since they need to knnow when to seed. but
that did not prove contact.
And yes, the sphynx was made of low quality
rock. Like the pyramids. In the case of the sphynx, to be buried on sand
has helped to preserve it. Otherwise it would have been more dammaged.
The amount of deterioration that has suffer only in this century alone
you can find more details on:
whenever it was possible egyptians cover the
limeligth with granite.
This casing of granite help to preserve the
soft core of the pyramids, and there is a project to put a new case in
the pyramids of "Me ken rau" to preserve it.
Remember that you can damage the limelight
with just a bit of acid. Romans use vinnegar to excavate limeligh.
And how can see a white men on a stone carving?
does it show white?
Olmec head had been describe as negroid and
mongolic, There is a beatifull figure that is called the wrestler, that
resembles looks like mongol , but also there are heads with factions that
resembler jaguar so there were really olmec with Jaguar Faces?
And where did you get he idea that native
american can't grow facial hair?. Altough a razor can last me a month,
if i forget to use it my wife will protest in a couple of days.
Beards are thin but they can be grown.
Remember that the myth of Quetzalcoatl says
that he let to grow his beard because he found that his face was ugly.
There is enough variation in the american
stock to allow for african like features or mongolic to have to resort
to more elaborated hypotesis.
Fri Apr 23 07:05:29 1999
Armaetno,can you tell me at what point of history we can look back and
say"at this time the orthodox view of reality was substantially accurate
and complete"? I'm afraid that I take acception to your assumption that
the quacky sounding work with which you are not familiar must come from
ignorance. I am familiar with the way in which knowledge is generated
and I have some familiarity with Anthropology. Although I was only able
to take one Anthro. course in university(for what its worth I got an A)
due to the heavy requirements of my double major in Psych. and Soc. it
was a favourite of mine and I have since kept up with recent findings
for my own interest. Please do not compare Hancock to Von Daniken simply
on the basis of orthodoxy. Hancock is looking for patterns based on extensive
work of other people. He documents his work. While I am not sure I agree
with everything he has suggested, he has satisfied me that there are principles
of human development or events which bear closer scrutiny. As for the
frequently asserted statements about the integrity of scientists ...PLEASE...what
are they Vulcans? Remember the easy access everyone had to the Dead Sea
Scrolls? Even scholars react defensively when it looks like their point
of view is being challenged and inter-disciplinary challenges are the
scariest because it often goes outside of fields of expertise. I'm basically
a generalist and I know the number of times I have proved accurate when
argueing with experts(if I know I don't have a clue,I don't argue) so
I now keep my own council. I shall summarize with an anecdote and a request.
I once engaged three oceanographers in a brief agruement in which I maintained
that water expands when it freezes. As their basic physics dictated otherwise
and I clearly was not qualified to dispute with them they refused to continue
the debate. I had the exact same arguement with a Physics major in university.
This is a true if silly example; my point being that, in their eyes, the
arguement was over as soon as they had compared our respective credentials.
Listening would have helped. Please, everyone, if you do in fact have
expertise in some related area ... read Hamlet's Mill, read Mirror of
the Sky and then come back here and give me a thoughtful and reasoned
response. One more thing, please look at it openmindedly: knowledge progresses
much faster when we don't start from antagonism.
Fri Apr 23 08:52:25 1999
nuetrino, this is late but thanks for the definition. I have seen several
discussion/arguements here where people literally did not know what they
were talking about because they were using words differently. What's the
point in flaunting symbols at each other if we do not agree on the referents?
Fri Apr 23 13:44:47 1999
Hi javier, The stars do not resemble pyramids,the pyramids resemble the
layout of the belt of orion.The minds of ancient man worked differently
to ours so they had ample time to look at the sky and see their monsters
or Gods. The movements of the heavens must have seemed like mans destiny
was preordained by the heavens.They saw the stars and believed them to
be their Gods or the workers of the mill.They watched the skies obsessivly
to see the signs and watch the changes and interperate them on earth.It
is believed in the book Hamlets Mill that the myths of man were not on
earth but played out in the stars,that the universe was the happening
place and man could only sit and watch the mill turn. Keep looking at
the stars,it might take some time but you will see them eventually.Also
read the books on myths and then watch the sky turn see how they saw their
lives in relation.
Wed Apr 28 15:00:48 1999
let me try explane why i think atlantis may of exested there has to be
an explanation why civalizations like the incas and mayans suddenly sprung
up in the ameracas with out any proof humans evolveing there
Thu Apr 29 08:30:03 1999
For one LAST time you IDIOT! Civilizations did NOT suddenly spring up
anywhere. Why don't you do a little research from some RELIABLE sources?
You will see the EVIDENCE you claim is not there. How can you be so stupid?
What level of education do you have?
Thu Apr 29 12:58:26 1999
By the way, I owe you an apology, it seems
that i mixed Von Daniken with Velikovsky. :-))
Thu Apr 29 15:09:27 1999
Javier, No problem mate,though Danikens theories are a little absured
I find that Velikovsky does have something on his birth of venus theory.
I'm not really familiar enough with Velikovsky to make a firm judgement.What
do you think?.
Thu Apr 29 15:12:47 1999
You know, cheesey, I might not be the only one who has noticed that there
is often an inverse relationship between the volume or tone of an arguement
and the weight of its facts.
Fri Apr 30 09:21:19 1999
You know Walley; you just might be right! I mean the "weight" of the facts
of my arguments are so meaningless when compared to your's and Lonnie's.
I mean I have physical evidence of human habitation in the forms of human
remains, remains of living quarters, pottery pieces. I have the writings
and research of people who devote their entire lives to studying the past
and who have uncovered the evidence of the development of civilization
(INCLUDING WRITING!) from agricultural settlements to monument building
societies. ALL OF THIS compared to your theories of high tech Atlatean
lost civilizations concocted by people with no training in Scientific
methods (often Psychics, how funny). They talk of flying machines and
ancient computers built by this peaceful society of Atlantis who supposedly
conducted world wide trade in their nuclear powered ships but funnily
and CONVIENTLY enough left no evidence of thier exploits except the idea
of ....PYRAMIDS! Oh yeah, no one could of thought of building a pyramid
without them! No other evidence exists though...how nice for the Psychics.
Meanwhile, they fleece the ignorant for money by hawking their books and
television shows on the FOX network. And your willing to belive them!
You won't belive the scientists working in the fields, digging up the
remains of past civilizations! What do they know? You BELIVE THE PSYCHICS!
They obviously know better!Hey, Ignorance is bliss!
Take Lonnie for example...he refuses to acknowledge
that societies in Latin AMerica and the Middle East could have achieved
such great and advanced societies without the help of some one else. Is
their a hint of racism in his views? He asks how these "brown people"
could have done this by themselves. Instead they had to have been helped
by people from Atlantis...Tell me Lonnie were the people from Atlantis
Lonnie claims these civilizations just "appeared"...
he says there is a "lack of evidence" showing otherwise. When did archaeological
remains become a "lack of evidence" Lonnie? Instaed you are wiling to
belive in a myth despite it's LACK OF EVIDENCE. I'll never understand
Fri Apr 30 15:13:28 1999
Thank-you, that was better. I'll get back to you about the rest.
Sat May 1 20:45:45 1999
Walley: "The orthodox view of reality"? Let me clear this point. As far
as our capacity to learn about the universe is concerned; right now there
is no way anyone can claim to have a "substantially accurate and complete"
view. That is the reason we keep doing research. Nobody has all the answers;
not Newton, Einstein, Leaky, not even Yogi Berra!!! But, the "experts"
(I hate the term) have expended years, sometimes their whole adult life,
dedicated to learning about a subject. You cannot brush them aside, just
because someone says they are wrong.
The idea of the outsider teaching a lesson
to the fossilized "high priests" of a particular field is very romantic,
but it isn't real.
It isn't that sometimes the "experts" are
not blinded or biased by their "knowledge", nor that they cannot learn
a thing or two from representatives from other fields, but in general,
you must agree, that Johansen knows more about Austrolopithecines, Coe
knows more about the Maya, and Rouse knows more about the Arawak than
the Chemistry Phd. who lives next door.
I freely admitted that I haven't read mister
Hancock's work. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I based my comments
on the information provided in this conversation by the different writters.
Now if Hancock has such an overwhelming amount of evidence for his ideas,
why haven't I seen these presented in any professional publications or
in scientific congresses? Why doesn't he submitt to the proper review
process? Some would blame some sort of Conspiracy. Yet, that would require
a concerted effort by all archaeologists, and, as you hinted in your comments,
there is absolutely no way you can achieve such an expectacular feat.
Are all scientists good, honest men, without
an ego? Absolutely not. What a better example that the Piltdown oax, blamed
by many on Chardin, an anthropologist and, worst, a priest!!! We are human
and "ergo" quite imperfect. That is one reason why there must be a peer
review. That is exactly the reason why I must ask: "What made Hancock
such an 'expert'?"
My favorite work is "The Ascent of Man" by
Jacob Brownoski; based on a series he "hosted" on PBS around 1973. In
this work he wrote about the "Priciple of Uncertainty" or as he called
it "the Principle of Tolerance", because "all knowledge is limited". He
also called on all students to keep a sense of irreverence towards what
is known, because students' responsability is not to worship what is known,
but to question it. I have followed his admonition, as best I can, and
it has gotten me in hot water more than once.
I hope you got to read the April 26 issue
of Newsweek. I believe that the article "First Americans?" presents quite
a good example of how the "peer process" works. The commonly held idea
was challenged. The "Pro's" rejected the new theory. Evidence mounted,
and mounted, until now the new theory has taken hold. It took time and
a lot of effort, but American Archaeology changed.
Sun May 2 12:05:51 1999
Armaetno, I have a great respect for those whose long hours of toil produce
expertize in any area. Without their work we would have nothing. What
is frustrating me is that many of the people here are grouping a large
number of works together under a category such as "stuff that is too dumb
or weird to look at". Maybe if we look at one item at a time we can get
closer to a consensus. In Hamlet's Mill, it is shown that a group of traditions
of diverse cultures contain extensive imagery and specific numbers which
relate specifically to precession of the equinox. Hancock has demonstrated
physical ruins are located at geographically exact positions to correspond
to those same precessional numbers. Although the ruins are of different
cultures, they have many intiguing similarities including positioning
of buildings to represent past star locations. Some building locations
suggest a common time is refered to at different locations. I cannot account
for this with anything I find in the books. I would be very interested
in anyone with expertize, who has read the works in question and can respond
to them, critically. The work is obviously interdisciplinary and requires
expertise in a number of fields.
Mon May 3 02:49:55 1999
Velikovsky wrote a beatifull written book,
in certain ways his works reminds my too much the claims of Hanckok.
He studied several civiliations, and several
myths. Based on those myths, he conluded:
that venus was the result of an eruption in
Jupiter, that it went for the solar sistem, Went near the earht and caused
the 7 plagues of Egytp, , then in the times of Josue, stooped the earth,
and then the earth went backwars and finaly it stope and became venus.
I read that book when i was 13, and i believe
The arguments seemed perfect, i looked as
it was fully documentes, with cites from every civilization that i never
have heard before.
I was until some years ago, that i understand
that it was physically imposible. And it only required some high school
math to prove it.
But This book created in me a lot of curiosity
for the past, so even now i treated it gently.
It's a shame that he did ot used his talents
for writing something more serious.
Fortunatelly i discoverd "Gods, tombs, and
wise men" (or whatever name it has i english), and i started to learn
something real about archeology.
About Hanckok, i raise some interesting coincidences,
but his method leaves a lot to think.
Like in the case of the erosion of the spynx,
he get the hypotesis that suits , and ignores all the others, ore in the
case of the pyramid of Cuicuilco, he choses the oldest date, ignoring
the facts that it was the result of an estimated, and it has been wkown
wrong for at least 50 years.
Since all ancient cultures depend of agriculture,
and the calendar was very important for them, it is not a surprise that
most of them know the dates of solstices and other astronomical events.
That not proves contact.
And even it there was contact, how did it
Let me put an example.
On of the oldes civilizations in Mesoamerica,
was the olmecs. They developed a very exact calendary, and a high developed
When the olmec civilization ended (probably
by war and hunger) it tooks about 200 years that another civilizations
started in the same area: the Mayas
They have an olmec influence, probably a the
remanents of the olmecs helped to started the Mayas. But a lot was lost.
In just 200 yeast a lot of knowdledge was lost.
Then how could something survive for thousands
And if someting as elaborated as astronomy
survived why not other technology?
If you compare the technology from the prehispanic
America with other parts of the world, it was completely diferent.
The wheel was known, but it was used only
for toys. There was no metal tools, but they had a complex metalurgy,
only used for decorations.
The ball game was one of the most important
ritual, and as far as i know it is unknown in the rest of the world.
I think i need somehing more solid, to acept
Mr. Hankcok, he may have something interesting, but still umproven.
Mon May 3 08:21:50 1999
cheesey do you have a racel chip on your shoulder what i am saying is
that the incas and mayens and other such civalizations are decendants
of atlantions that would make them of the same race now all i have read
and heard the so called experts can't explane how people first came to
the amaricaes of course thay like you ignore the obviouse this only my
opion try not let it upset you but i am interested in ancient civilizations
i would be very interested in your knowledge of such
Mon May 3 15:37:00 1999
Hi Javier, I guess theres' never going to be a difinitive answer.I still
can't get hold of Velikovsky's books as there out of print but when I
do I'll be sure to try to read as best I can. Why did you change your
mind?,you say you were thirteen when you read his books but soon came
to question them.Thats always good,questions should always be raised but
the Greeks say that Venus was born from the head of Jupiter they wouldn,t
say that for no reason.How did simple maths make you reevaluate your mind?.As
I say I haven't read the books so I can't make a proper judgement. As
for Hancock he has made some concessions on his beliefs,and thats more
than some 'experts'.I don't think it's fair to just pick out Hancock all
the time sure he chooses the hypothosis that fits the facts that cannot
be denied,but isn't that what all researchers do?.Find things out and
then attach a hypothosis. Unfortunatley this is a field that cries out
for evidence but alas none can be found. On a different note how are you
on the buildings on Mars,the Face and the city?.Also just out of interest
were do you come from?,I'm from England and don't know how much of a diverse
pool of knowledge we have here.
Mon May 3 17:20:25 1999
Well, it took my a couple of years after reading
Velikosvsky. As soon as i could manage to use the laws of motion of newton
and the laws of gravity I understand how unlikely the process was.
The forces involved would have torn the earth
and Venus, before any of the efects seeked by Velikosky would apear.
Also the chains of events was very unlikely.
the solar sysem is too big, if it measured by the size of the plannets.
That a comets pases near the earth is unlikey.
But that it passes near, several times in historical time!!! the posibilities
By the way, i am from Mexico City, an engineer,
that loves ancient History.
About Mars, the last mission photograph the
"Face" with much more resolution, and did not find anything.
Somewhere i saw the photographies, let me
look for them.
I you are asking me about extraterestial life,
i think there is someone out the. But the earth is soo small in the middel
of the universe, and we have existed for so little time, that the probabilitys
or and encounter in historical tiems are small. I think Carsl Sanga made
once the estimate, altough i don't remember it.
But until we found something, like a fosilized
radio, or something equivalente we dont kow nothing.
My main problem with Hanckok is that most
of what he says is not really new. Some of it are points of view that
had been abandoned some time ago, or that had been propose by esoteric
groups, withouth much proof.
Its funny, but i first read a lot of books
from esoteric circles, like the Chatedral of Chartres, and things like
then i Realized that a lot of those authors
were just citing ont to another, but they never went actually to investigate.
Maybe you would think that i am overreacting,
but probably i have read too much garbage and it makes me a little impacient.
Tue May 4 15:08:59 1999
Hi Javier, Your from Mexico city? COOL!.Your ancient historys much better
than mine.We have strange burial mounds and stone circles over here you
have those wonderful temples and statues that have strange meanings no-one
understands. There is alot of rubbish out there take Von Daniken for instance.
As for the Face on Mars it raises all sorts of possibilities.It depends
where you stand on ETs,I personally believe in them and that the governments
are covering up first contact.It's long been believed that earth had a
twin and people think it's venus but evidence supports Mars as a more
likely suspect. The pictures that the Mars probes sent back recently have
been heavily doctored to appear that the face is not there but more 'raw'
pictures suggest that it is more face like thar ever.Don't forget that
the Mars orbiter was lost under 'mysterious circumstances' and it may
have been a coverup for something. Anyway thats got nothing to do with
ancient history or has it?.Ancient Egypt has many references to Mars and
what may have occured during their time. As for comets hitting the earth
it is a real possibility.Scientists went round claiming comets don't hit
planets and then shoemaker-levy hit jupiter suddenly we don't seem so
indestructable.Asteroids that could destroy the whole world pass us by
as close as the moon.A small asteroid hit the moon in the 18th century,it
was widely reported and if the moon had not been in the way it would have
devestated the world. An asteroid ten kilometres long passed close by
at a place that the earth had occupied just six hours earlier.It's frightening
and is that what happened to Mars?,is that why structures that are man-made
appear in a dead world,maybe Mars once supported life and was struck by
an asteroid which turned it into the world it is now?.Ancient texts seem
to think so.
Wed May 5 09:20:44 1999
amlodhi, give me a freaking break! How old are you? Again, what level
of education do you have? DO you also believe that the moon is made of
cheese? There is an ancient text that speaks of a cow jumping over the
moon; do you believe this?
I have seen natural rock formations in Tennessee
that are the most remarkable representations of human faces; you mean
to tell me that rock formations on Mars (which really do NOT resemble
human features when examined closely) could not be natural formations.
The so called "concessions" that you talk
about Hancock making are HUGE! You act as if they are minor chages in
some of his theories. NO NO NO WRONG WRONG! Among his many concessions
when faced with irrefutable scientific evidence are that indeed the Great
Pyramid was built by the Egyptians. This is no minor claim. It throws
his entire 10,000 BC construction theory to the wind.
Lonnie your reply was at once childish and
incoherent! You have ignored basic facts established in the field of new
world anthropology for decades now!!! Perhaps this is why you resort to
outlandish theories of Ancient Civilizations. I'm sure there are some
Fairy Tale Forums on the Net somewhere where you can peddle your garbage.
Go find them!
Wed May 5 18:30:26 1999
hi amlodhi,How can you say that the Mars photos have
been tampered?Simply i cannot buy the idea that a first
contact has been cover up.As Arthur C.Clarke wrote:"it,s as imposible as hiding a Dinosaur in
Hide Park"How did you get to those conclusions?cheesey, try to calm down. I am afraid lonnieshiv
will never hear us, so it,s no use to insist.
Thu May 6 07:50:03 1999
Javier: The book you were talking about, was it C.W. Ceram's "Gods, Graves
& Scholars"? For all others, so you know, it is a history of Archaeology
originally published in Germany in 1949. Although dated, it is a good
introduction to the field.
Lonnieshiv: I hate to disagree with you, but
we do have afairly good idea about where most of the original settlers
of the Americas came from. The archaeologists are debating the dates of
the original migration and if smaller groups came from other locations
(And We will be debating for many years) as was stated in the Newsweek
article. Now, this debate has absolutely nothing to do with any "Ultra
Ancient Civilisations", like Atlantis. The evidence for the existance
of that "continent", given our knowledge of the geology of the Atlantic
Ocean (We even have quite detailed maps), is basically zero. Had such
a civilisation exised, its influence on the, at that time, very "primitive"
peoples of both the New World and the Old World would have been enormous.
Specially, if as many claims Atlantis was the root from which the "ancient
civilisations" (i.e. Inca, Maya, Egypt) grew. Yet, the similarities between
these societies is very, very, very small. There is no evidence of acculturation
between Maya and Egyptian, except that both build structures that WE call
pyramids. Curiously, there are no Inca pyramids. Furthermore, the chronology
of these societies does not match in any way.
Walley: As I have said it before, I haven't
read Hancock's work; it has never been presented in any professional forum.
Yet, by what I have heard of his "theories" in this conversation, I must
insist that they sound like nonsense. I'll try to find more information
about him and his ideas, and I would appreciate if you could help. Does
his book contains any biographical or academic information on him? Does
it present any type of methodology on how he carried out his research?
Besides ruins located at "geographically exact positions", what other
evidence for his claims does he present?
I have always wondered , how come if Atlantis
was supposed to be in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the supposed branch
civilisations sprouted in locations which are thousands of miles from
the Atlantic Coast? Wouldn't it be logical that we would find these subcivilisations
in places like the Iberian Penninsula, Nigeria, North Carolina, or Brasil?
Have fun, Armaetno
to my is one of the most beatifull written
books on Archeology, by now is somehow outdated, but since it a story
of those that made archeoloy, that part is as good as new,.I have buy this book about 5 times, and always
lent it. I sincerely recomend it to all of you guys.specially for those that are fond on conspirations
theories.You will find some "rejected ideas", but not
the kind that you may think.By the way, would you care if we start a secnod
part. it taking to much time to load.
Thu May 6 14:11:20 1999
thank you for armaetno for the info cheesy i like you your silly
Thu May 6 15:35:17 1999
Oh.I'm sorry Cheesy I didn't know that my post was addressed to YOU.In
case you haven't noticed this is an ancient civilizations board which
means we discuss ancient civilizations.You don't seem to believe that
they exist so WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?. You strike me as the sort of person
who shouts everyone down and then runs off in case he hears someone answer.If
you don't agree with me then reply in an adult way since you seem to be
obsessed with peoples ages and their education. Why don't you agree with
me?,what is wrong with my theories?.Where do you stand on this debate?.Why
won't you question the established order of things?. There is a huge amount
of evidence that supports the ancient civilization hypothosis but I suppose
you have already burnt those books or beaten any deserters into submission.Rather
than blowing a stack everytime someone raises a point try to answer in
a way that will make people like you rather than want to break your neck.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?.
Fri May 7 04:17:34 1999
cheesey, this is Arguements and Discussions, Abuse is down the hall.
Fri May 7 16:06:17 1999
thank you armaetno, Yes, it's C.W. Ceram's "Gods, Graves & Scholars"in spanish is "Dioses , tumbas y sabios"
And we are in a dead point. I think that to
suport ulrancient civilizations, we new some data to dig on
it.for example, the oldest kow city to date is
Jericho, is there anything older, that could be
clasified as a civilization?Javier Delgado
Thu May 13 08:31:33 1999
Walley: Acouple of days after my last posting I was visiting a bookstore
and I bumped into a copy of "Heaven's Mirror:Quest for the Lost Civilization"
by G. Hancock and S. Falla ($45.00!!!). Naturally I took it down for a
long look (long for a bookstore). I regret to say that my suspicions were
confirmed; it is nonsense. His "theories" are based in his ignorance,
or worst. Furthermore, as I suspected, Mr. Hancock, according to the bio
in the book, was a reporter and has no formal training in Anthropology,
Archaeology, nor Astronomy. By chance, that same day I found the May/June
issue of "Archaeology Odyssey" the magazine published by the Biblical
Archaeology Society. If you want to learn about "Who Really Build the
Pyramids?", you should check the article in that issue. One small clue:
It wasn't ET.
Javier: Don't you remember the old saying:
"Ni la mujer, ni el carro, ni los libros se prestan." Once I read a quote
from someone famous (don;t remember who), that said something like: "The
best books in my library are those that I borrowed". Keep lending your
books, specially the good ones, and you will pay ... for new copies to
I'm not shure Jericho is the oldest city.
I know it is one of the oldest, but I feel this tingling in the back of
my head... I studied that in college, but that was "so long ago" (hate
saying that) and I don't remember. I probably have a book, at my parents
house, with that information. In any case, if I'm not wrong, it was also
in that region, and Jericho is one of the oldest, if not the oldest city.
Of course, by our standards it would little more than a hamlet or small
town, but back then, it was a "revolution". Check V. Gordon Childe for
information on that period.
If you think we should create a Part Two
to this conversation, that will be fine with me, but please let us know.
One more thing, before we create a new "conversation",
could we all calm down and TALK, not insult and attack each other. This
is an exchange of ideas, even if we don't agree. Debate is good, personal
attacks, not so good. Everyone cool down!
Have fun Armaetno