Some archeologic news.
 

deleted...

Read this note:
 

[i]Edit by SkinWalker (10/12/03): [b]Andre apparently got pissed and deleted all of his posts. Fortunately, the "delete first thread" feature that allows the person that began a thread to delete the [i]entire[/i] thread by deleting his first one is not enabled.

Still, Andre removed every post from the one above to the last couple on page 2. Its not a bother, though. Just read my quotes of Andre, which did not get deleted, to see what he posted. Everything else was irrelavant anyway. The thread survives... and [i]will[/i] stand.[/b]

Well, it most decidedly cannot be that unnamed city... since all the legend and lore surrounding it originated from Plato's dialogs....

Dialogs he used as Socrates did before him to teach and entertain through fictional situations that involved sometimes fictional characters...

Plato used this unnamed city in two dialogs and there were some inconsistency between them as far as dates. There was also nothing in the way of corroboration from related sources of the dialog's legend, like Egyptian sources that mention the same story.

The tale of this unnamed city was one of many fictions that Plato used in his dialogs that allowed him to discuss issues such as war and peace, heaven and hell, or good and evil.

If there is, in fact, some archeological find in the water of the Atlantic Ocean, it will find it's publication in mainstream journals... I've seen nothing as yet.

But as to finding walls, columns, and roads in the ocean... this has all been claimed before and very reasonable explanations have accounted for them. The Bimini roads & columns are a good example.

Hmm.. would it be a coincidence that this "myth" was drowned for 9000 years ago and the iceage ended somewhere around that time as well (11k BC something).

The myths of the deluge from different scriptures and cultures also seem to "have" taken place around this time.

When a large amount of ice is melting that will create a lot of water. Some lands would then have been flooded (not the whole earth tho).

Can the unnamed island/city actually be one of those floof-stories that almost every culture across earth have in their myths.

Maybe its better to look for this place in around ancient mesopotamia since the oldest original flood-story is from the land of Sumer and if those guys had a memory of a lost city it would probably be local.

:)

Last ice age ended 15-20,000 years ago. Ancient cities can have ended underwater for a number of reasons, mostly geological. There is absolutely no reason to cry "Atlantis" (there, I mentioned it :eek: ), everytime somebody discivers some underwater ruins.

Like most, if not all, myths, the Atlantis myth probably has some core of reality. We know of a number of cities and places that have sunk into the sea.

Hans

That was basicly my point.

Although as my readings tells me last iceage ended somewhere between 10+ BC and 14k BC.. anyway, that doesnt really matter.

must have ended in different parts of the world at different times :-\
anyways my source says about 11,500 bce

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]The more credible studies of the Critias have other explanations for the 9000. Georgeos explains in several pages that Solon or Plato could have misunderstood the Egyptian priest, ... If not, there are more hypotheses to be tested. [/B][/QUOTE]

My hypothesis is that Plato [i]invented[/i] the civilization of Atlantis for a discussion point. Just as he had created many fictional scenarios in other dialogs. Creating a fictional scenario and using "characters" to tell the stories and argue opposing sides gave him a bit of freedom, particularly from authorities who might not like what he had to say about war or state.

A fictitious civilization was a way of washing his hands from responsibility of criticizing his own state politics, since he could always say, "that's just how [i]Critias[/i] sees the problem in [i]Atlantis[/i]." Neither was real. Incidently, the name Critias was taken from Plato's grandfather if memory serves correct.

So my hypothesis is that Plato invented a civilization to discuss freely the problems of his own. After his death, the "antiquarian" attitudes of various collectors of curiosity discovered the dialogs and applied it to mythology. People like Ignatius Donnelly fabricate additional "evidence" and the fire is ignited. Now everytime someone finds underwater features of pattern, they yell "Atlantis!"

Perhaps we'll see that Georgeos has found another example of limestone erroded to blocks with joints and fractures at right angles. Maybe he found barrals of concrete that had fallen overboard or sunk with a ship. If he really thinks Plato got the information of Atlantis from an Egyptian, then there's no telling what he found.

Ponder this, if Solon and Plato actually got the information from an Egyptian of their time, why then was there no record in Egyptian culture of Atlantis? The Egyptians kept fascinating records on just about everything they thought was interesting and much that was tedious. Surely [i]this[/i] would have earned it's own glif or two.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Avatar [/i]
[B]must have ended in different parts of the world at different times :-\
anyways my source says about 11,500 bce [/B][/QUOTE] OK, we might all be right. After all, the ice age didn't just one day end. That ice took about ten thousand years to melt, so when exactly did it "end"? My country (Denmark) was free of ice around 15,000bc.

Hans

Well as a matter of fact the ice has not melted yet ;)
It has just been repressed by the sun to withdraw up north into the arctics.

I think there are some pretty good definitions of some average temperature over x number of years or something like that..

Ice ages are a bit too well documented to be dismissed. Alone their extensive rearranging of the landscape speaks for itself. Add to this pollen analysis, signs of changes in sea level, ice cores, etc.

You'd need some very strong evidence to present an alternative theory.

Hans

Re: Hans
 

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]and just try to find a single publication that is able to place and explain just a few pieces of evidence, not even all of it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Try: Dawson, Alastair, 1992. [b]Ice Age Earth: Late Quaternary Geology and Climate[/b].

Or: Skinner, Porter, & Botkin, 3rd ed. 2004. [b]The Blue Planet: An Introduction to Earth System Science[/b]. Ch. 10, pp 218-227.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]It's all a big mystery from the viewpoint of ice age, were all evidence seem to contradict. Just read the threads. [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps some evidence contradicts, but from what I've read, most shows correlation. I'm not necessarily criticizing, I'm just curious what specific points you see as contradictory.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]Now using exactly the same evidence but placing it in a different context gives a totally different solution to all of it, not just a few. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's called 'explanation by scenario' and is generally bad science. Though [i]scenarios[/i] might give us starting points to look for evidence, they don't provide adequate explanation.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]really? any idea how much progress was made since 1992? [/B][/QUOTE]

That's true, but much of Dawson's material is still relavent. The information he uses is very durable. Although there are, undboubtedly, many things that could be updated with the advent of newest research. His focus on the varience and irregularity of glaciation in differing regions of the planet is of interest. He also focuses strongly on the geology of the Quartenary and since, which still holds true for the localities he discussed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]There was hardly an ice core available. Nobody knew about the surprises of ODP hole 893A. [/B][/QUOTE]

Which provided some evidence of the ocean climates, particularly the oxygen levels and surface temperature changes, though I'm not sure of the specific hole you mentioned.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]There was still a notion of a big yet non existing east Siberian Ice sheet during the last glacial maximum. The Jarkov mammoth wasn't found yet. No, there happened a lot since then.[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't disagree :) (particularly since I haven't studied this field specifically) I just don't know what the "contradictions" are that lead one to believe that an advanced civilization had a more than minimal probability of existence prior to 10 kyrs ago.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]Try the [url=http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/6916.html]"Two-mile time machine"[/url] of Richard B. Alley and see how much doubt the autor has. [/B][/QUOTE]

I did [i]try[/i] the link, but it didn't appear to work. I'll try again later.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Andre [/i]
[B]In my world it was testing a hypothesis after it was formulated. Nothing tested wrong yet. [/B][/QUOTE]

Using a scenario to develop hypotheses for testing is one thing, but using a scenario to demonstrate conclusions means a certain amount of fiction must be involved. Even for hypotheses, the scenario is only valuable if specific and not broad-ranging. Otherwise, it becomes more difficult to use the hypotheses to predict other finds. For instance, if you examine a site and find obvious signs of cooking (i.e. hearths, pottery) but no animal remains, one could imagine a scenario where the hunters cleaned their game outside of the settlement. Looking for remains of bones in outlying regions of the settlement might provide evidence of the kills. This would confirm a hypothesis, reinforcing the overall scenario.

Getting back to Atlantis, the scenario is that an unusually advanced civilization existed on a continent or large island in the Atlantic Ocean. Geologic evidence hasn't born this out, neither has historic record or archeological finds. If, in fact, a city is discovered off the coast of Spain, it'll be interesting. But my money is on natural geologic formations and perhaps sunken ship cargo that may have included barrels of cement. Or some other, similar, explanation.

[QUOTE]He confirms the finding the remains of walls, houses, factories, pillars, carved rock, wells, and other unknown and strange constructions on a dept of 10-40 meters below sea level in the Atlantic near the coast at Cadiz, Spain. [/QUOTE]

I didn't see on the site where he "confirmed" any of the above. I would have expected some photos, sonar data, a map of provenience, etc.

I guess we'll see after a "press conference," though I don't understand why that would preclude a serious publication in an archeological journal.

It has all the markings of pseudoscience/pseudoarcheology.

Title of the paper and what journal? I'm interested in reading it.

[quote]I send a photo to You of a striker pin of copper 97% and arsenic (oreichalkós) It was cleaned in laboratory. This striker pin was found in a factory of smelting and goldsmiths, by dabajo of -12 meters and near the opening of the Guadalquivir. [/quote]

This is all the provenience that Montexano bothers to share with us. It tells very little of the relationship that the alleged artifact has to other artifacts of the area in regards to spatial or temporal location.

Moreover, Montexano makes conclusions without support with the statement of "found in a factory of smelting and goldsmiths." This is the sort of information one would expect to see the corroborating discovers that indicate these conclusions.

Also, on Montexano's websites, there is precious little that validates his credibility beyond that of entertainers such as Graham Hancock. What Uni was his degree(s) from? What specific degrees does he possess? With whom did he study? Where are his published works in peer-reviewed journals (he indicates that he was part of the management/administration teams of excavations in places such as Cuba)?

These questions and lack of forthcoming answers do not mean that he isn't credible, of course. It could be that he is simply modest, though he doesn't seem to mind touting his previous works in various fringe publications.

The more I examine Montexano's work, the more I'm inclined to believe he's a fraud.

I think the telling example of his ability to think critically and search for true answers versus those which he [i]wants[/i] to be true is in the latest post of that thread where he uses the following images as support for his Atlantean hypotheses:

[size=1][url]http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/chipiona/geoglifos/circulosconcentricos4.jpg[/url]
[url]http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/chipiona/geoglifos/sepulturas-calendario_elrocio.jpg[/url]
[url]http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/chipiona/geoglifos/serpienteyhuevodelrocio2.jpg[/url]

Montexano says:[quote]Recently I finish discovering in different points from Andalusia, some giant geoglifos that represent concentric circles, serpents, circles with internal crossings, and until several mounds circles and quadrangular pyramids (Egyptian type), it can that they have to do with Atlantis[/quote][/size]

Anyone familiar with modern agricultural practices, particularly in regards to irrigation, will recognize these "geolifos."

[url]http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/4426442.htm[/url]

Not credentials, but a news report on Georgeos Diaz Montexano
"'With this law, as always, it's the little guy that gets hurt,'' said the 36-year-old archaeologist and historian."

According to this
[url]http://usuarios.lycos.es/Georgeos/author.htm[/url]
he attended Harvard and S.E.C.

He is also Jorge Diaz Sanchez

And yes those green disks certainly look like what results from irrigation...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]Not credentials, but a news report on Georgeos Diaz Montexano[/b][/quote]

[quote][i]Originally from the article linked above[/i]
[size=1] Times have been hard for Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's online course in Egyptian hieroglyphics. One student in two years, $12 in tuition[/size][/quote]

:) Some could make an argument to credibility from [i]that[/i], but I won't bother....

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]According to this
[url]http://usuarios.lycos.es/Georgeos/author.htm[/url]
he attended Harvard and S.E.C.[/b][/quote]

I've looked at this bio too, both in English as well as Spanish. The Harvard reference appears misleading, since it refers to the [url=http://www.epigraphy.org/]Epigraphic Society[/url], which was [i]founded[/i] by "B. Fell" of Harvard College as well as Norman Totten of Bentley College.

Also, I cannot find (doesn't mean it isn't legit) a correlation to the acronym "S.E.C." other than [i]Socidad Española de Cardiología[/i], or the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

There appears to be no mention of degrees and university credentials. Moreover, he doesn't use the expected "pH.d. or "Dr." in correlation to his name. One would expect to see it [i]somewhere[/i] in all his literature if he were, indeed, an "archaeologist" [i]and[/i] "historian."

Again, these are all observations and only raise questions. Conclusions would have to wait for answers.

Nope. Only the search for the gentleman's credentials. I've seen it referenced that Montexano was an archaeologist, a linguist, a historian, and an anthropologist (which, of course, he would be if he were archaeologist or linguist).

I was curious, mainly, where he studied. That would give a place to begin looking for his past or current research. It would also help to understand what methodology he might be using since knowing where he studied would disclose who taught him.

Of course, it would also close the door that he was simply an up-and-coming Graham Hancock, out to get his own show on Discovery Channel... or SciFi Channel. It would shut that door... but perhaps not lock it.

Well, I would like to know what that S.E.C. stands for. Maybe I will just email and ask him.
en espanol,
la escuela = school
escuela, facultad - university school
universidad - university
colegio - college

Re: Georgeos Diaz Montexano
 

Andre, NileQueen, and SkinWalker,

Since Georgeos began making his unwarranted, unjustifiable, & unsubstantiated accusations/allegations of [I]"theory thievery"[/I] and plagiarism against me in the Atlantis Rising forum, I have been looking into Georgeos' past and his "claims" of being a scientist. The results have not yet been very positive nor encouraging.

Georgeos claims to have performed a great deal of work either through, or for, the S.E.C. The S.E.C. is an acronym for "la Sociedad Espeleologica de Cuba" (the Speleological Society of Cuba). He has also claimed to have performed a great deal of work either through, or for, the A.C.C. The A.C.C. is an acronym for "la Academia de Ciencas de Cuba" (the Academy of Science of Cuba).

As SkinWalker so astutely pointed out in his posting, Georgeos never mentions that he has earned a degree, he only states that he studied Archaeology and History at the S.E.C.; this could merely mean that he had an opportunity to observe paleolithic remains whilst on a cave "spelunking" trip. And what "Society" do you guys know that offers degrees in Archaeology and History? If he would actually have earned a degree in any of the fields that he has named (archaeology, history, anthropology, palaeolinguistics, epigraphy, linguistics, & scriptology), he would have studied them at the A.C.C. - [B]NOT[/B] at the S.E.C.

Anyway, I have sent an e-mail to the president of the S.E.C. and asked if he remembers either a Georgeos Diaz Montexano or a Jorge Diaz Sanchez having any association with the S.E.C. from 1988-1993. I await his response.

Furthermore, Georgeos lists Epigraphy and Palaeolinguistics as topics he has studied; he then lists both the International Epigraphic Society and the Barry Fell Foundation of Harvard University as if he studied at these two locations. What is really funny about this, however, is if you go the Harvard University webpage and do a search for the Barry Fell Foundation, it returns 0 results! In fact, I can't find [B]ANYTHING[/B] on any Barry Fell Foundation. The Midwest Epigraphic Society is based here in Columbus, Ohio and I will be contacting them soon to ask about Georgeos' claims, as well.

I am currently researching and trying to obtain a list of the 1991 "Carlos de la Torre National Award" recipients, and when I do, I'll wager his name is not on it! If not, you can rest assured that I will be posting a copy of this in the Atlantis Rising Forum!

The excavations he claims to have been on were probably just in a volunteer capacity, and as such he would have been hauling and sifting bucket after bucket of excavated material (dirt) - [B]NOT[/B] carefully revealing archaeological treasures with a patiche and brush!

All of the "Journals" he claims to have founded, and "Projects of Exploration and Investigation" he claims to have conducted, appear to be nothing more than his own "creations" - listed for the express purpose of "impressing" people.

Lastly, and most humorously (I believe), is his claim of being a "linguist", and yet, in almost all of the languages he professes to be able to translate and read, he lists his skill level as "basic"! In not one language does he even claim to have an "Intermediate" skill level, except in Ancient Egyptian, and his knowledge of hieroglyphics does not stand in testament to that claim.

Why did he change his name from Jorge Diaz Sanchez to Georgeos Diaz Montexano, I wonder?

It is possible that much of what he has written in his background is comparable to a job resume (slightly exaggerated to make himself look more important than he really is - no real harm there), but there are portions of his background page that are downright misleading and other portions that (I believe) are just plain misrepresentative and fraudulent. I believe that I will eventually be able to prove that he is a fraud, and when I do I'll let you all know. Andre and NileQueen, I will post the evidence of his fraudulence in the Atlantis Rising Forum for all there to read.

Erick