Jacques Collina-Girard
 

[url]http://www.lookingforatlantis.com/index.html[/url]

A new website on Jacques Collina Girard and his expedition.
I like the graphics on this site.

"The team have access to the latest submersibles and extensive experience in their operation and application. The submarine capsules offer unparalleled visibility; their external and internal cameras record every aspect of an operation whilst batteries of light produce ideal working and filming conditions even in complete darkness. They can carry one operator and one scientist, with remote arms combining incredible strength, agility and sensitivity. From these platforms the crew can operate all the tools of the modern marine archaeologist and practice all techniques at depths of 1000m for up to 6 hours. This is a revolution in marine archaeology. "

Oh-oh, we are straying from pseudoscience, I hope the thread doesn't get moved again...I'll never find it...;)

JCG Expedition Personnel
 

[url]http://www.lookingforatlantis.com/mainframe.html[/url]

"Jamie McCallum – Commercial Director.

McCallum has worked extensively in the sports marketing industry including [b]spells[/b] within Formula One and with Mark McCormack’s IMG. He has worked with the Royal Geographical Society, National Geographic and Conservation International and on several global expeditions for which he managed multi media platforms and corporate sponsorship. "

Wait, wait, wait...he must be using magic. It says "spells" right there....;)

The caves
 

Now this is intriguing. In the personnel bio of JCG he tells why they are looking for caves....

"Collina-Girard is a world expert on pre historic civilisations, and particularly those of SW Europe at the end of the last ice age. Of particular significance is his earlier discovery of cave paintings in the South of France. These caves are unique in that they are accessible only by use of SCUBA, as postglacial sea level rises of 130m have submerged the cave entrances. ..."
[url]http://www.lookingforatlantis.com/mainframe.html[/url]

Now that's cool.

Good updates NileQueen!

The site is brief but it's to the point. I like the layout of "research," "abstract," "conclusion."

Incidently, I received this email back from National Geographic.

[size=1][i]
From: [email]jcrain@ngs.org[/email]
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:21:10 -0500
Subject: re: Expedition with Georgeos Diaz-Montexano

Thank you for contacting the National Geographic Society.
_
Before we would be able to search our records for information on Senor Diaz-Montexano’s work,[b] we will need to know with which area of the Society he claims to have been communicating. [/b] In addition to the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine, we have our television affiliates, the Expeditions Council, and the Committee for Research & Exploration, as well as several other publications. If you can provide additional details, I would be happy to check with the appropriate department.
__
_
_
Julie Crain
National Geographic Society
_
Is the National Geographic Channel available in your area? Find out or
request it at: [url]http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel.[/url][/i][/size]

In the stuff you've read that he (or his alleged secretary, who's english is exactly as flawed as his :) ) has written about National Geographic, does it mention what area of the Society he's communicating with?

I've looked, but I see nothing. I really hate to register on [i]alantisrising[/i] just to ask that! <grin>

SkinWalker, I don't know about the National Geographic connection,
but the Royal Geographical Society has an event scheduled for this
afternoon. It is titled: "The myth of Atlantis: Fiction or Non-Fiction?"
The talk is to be at the Society's House in London Nov. 5 at 7 p.m.
[url]http://www.rgs.org/[/url]

SW [QUOTE]I've looked, but I see nothing. I really hate to register on alantisrising just to ask that! [/QUOTE]

Okay, fine. I've done it for you. You hate to register because it takes too long, or because that forum has the air of pseudoscience about it? ;)

[url]http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000736-2.html[/url]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]You hate to register because it takes too long, or because that forum has the air of pseudoscience about it? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

The latter :p

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B][url]http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000736-2.html[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]

I fired off the information his "secretary" provided to NG and now we just wait... should be about a week or so... based on how long the initial response took.

[quote]I fired off the information his "secretary" provided to NG and now we just wait... should be about a week or so... based on how long the initial response took.[/quote]

Okay good. [QUOTE]The latter [/QUOTE]

Well they are pretty tolerant of non-pseudo discussion and we have discussed the Cuban city at length, and many aspects of earth science without danger to our cyberpersons.

Your forum nickname would imply a pseudoscience interest. ;-) And how can you stand to be contaminated by this very thread :D You are inconsistent...it does not compute....:-P

Further news
 

[url]http://www.caminomedia.com/www/version_inglesa/press/index.htm[/url]

Maria Fdez-Valmayor says:
" That is the producer that signed a contract with Georgeos. But they say that they cannot do nothing before the problem of Collina-Girard, because Georgeos still does not have the endorsement of any Academy of Sciences nor of any University of prestige."

I wonder what kind of contract that is.

"Only yesterday Georgeos were speaking with their Direct Muchael Moffet, and it explained to him to Georgeos that the true reason by which nobody wants to publish the information for Georgeos is because it does not endorse to him or supports no scientific institution, and that they cannot do nothing because she is enough not even with the images.

That is, that as Georgeos is not recognized nor supported by any University or Scientific Institution he has to get annoyed..."

Does he have to get annoyed? And I thought he had scientists working with him...

"...and to allow that other that yes tinene recognition as Collina-Girard all the merits take. According to words of the Director of "CaminoMêdia", Georgeos cannot be made nothing change to the things nor the world. If Georgeos does not obtain that they support and they give the face to him by him, institutions or people recognized in the scientific world, because Georgeos will not have opportunity and Collina-Girard or anyone will take the merits of the discoveries.

If truely he is thus, as the director of the producer tells it, because then Georgeos is lost already the battle, because hardly we will find a University that is arranged to support to Georgeos."

But since Georgeos has published in many magazines already, I don't know why now there is a problem....

Re: Further news
 

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]But since Georgeos has published in many magazines already, I don't know why now there is a problem.... [/B][/QUOTE]

This is because Diaz-M has only "published" in lay publications and not professional journals. If he had, he certainly would add these to his bio/resume. This is a significant point.

My hypothesis on Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is that he is a well-informed fraud. Nothing more.

I believe his "secretary" is he.

I believe that he (even when using his "secretary") translates all of his English business at [url]www.freetranslation.com,[/url] [url]www.babelfish.com,[/url] or perhaps just google.

I believe that he is no more well read than most of the rest of the enthusiasts on the internet.

I believe that he, through his readings, has created a fantasy world where [i]he[/i] is the star. Not the legitimate researchers like Collina-Girard.

The similarities with Collina-Girard are interesting. Both apparently from Spain (or at least the Med region); both have an interest in the writings of Plato; both have a interest in a similar region of the Straight of Gibralter; both have communications with National Geographic; etc.

I believe that the closest GD-M has ever been to an archeological expedition was probably "hefting matrix" (pails of dirt).

I believe that GD-M has no formal education or training at [i]any[/i] university [i]any[/i]where.

I see no evidence of the contrary. I could not make these claims of Collina-Girard. The evidence of his past is clear. National Geographic's interest in his work is on their website (which, incidently, appears to have been posted prior to GD-M's announcement of his work); Collina-Girard's intentions, hypothesis, and research seems up-front.

Too bad GD-M doesn't frequent this board... he might like to respond. Though I expect it would be something along the lines of: "all must being patient to wait. Sceptiks will be, but my will be expedition you will see in end."

At least, this is [i]close[/i] to the response I might expect from this [i]linguist.[/i]

Overall, however, I find this thread to be interesting in that the idea of pseudoscience is discussed in terms that even those who believe in the existance of Atlantis must consider. It isn't necessarily pseudoscience to believe that Atlantis was real. But GD-M's methods are [i]pseudoscientific[/i]. He is reminescent of the "snake-oil" salesmen of the 19th century. "Here's a product of science that all will agree is a miracle. It removes stains, extends life, and even prevents gout!"

But there are no ingredients on the label and the ingredients are either a closely guarded secret to prevent theft from competitiors or they are too complex for the laity to understand.

This thread gives a common ground for various believers and skeptics to look at what might be real fraud. Or might not be. My hypothesis is that fraud exists with GD-M. As difficult as it is to prove he's legit, it is at least as difficult to prove that he isn't. If National Geographic hasn't heard of him, he could easily explain this away as, "you didn't speak to those whom I spoke with..., etc."

Perhaps Banshee should rename this thread to "a case study in possible pseudoscience." The [i]real[/i] archaeological news is Collina-Girard.

[quote]I believe his "secretary" is he. [/quote]

Interesting hypothesis. I suppose this picture could be anyone.

[url]http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/ayudaageorgeosenglish_archivos/image007.jpg[/url]
"Permit me before to present/display me I am called Maria Fdez-Valmayor, I am Spanish, of Madrid and I go to You like secretary of the east "Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.)"
[url]http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000736.html[/url]

I did email the link to this discussion to Georgeos over a week ago, if not longer.

[QUOTE]This is because Diaz-M has only "published" in lay publications and not professional journals. If he had, he certainly would add these to his bio/resume. This is a significant point.[/QUOTE]
Publishing in lay journals is nothing to sneer at. I would be impressed if someone I knew had an article published in Reader's Digest, Discover, National Geographic etc. Having that article published increases awareness of what you are doing. We in the U.S. really don't know the caliber of magazines his articles appear in. I mean if it is something like the Globe or the Examiner, you've got a point.

[QUOTE]I believe that he is no more well read than most of the rest of the enthusiasts on the internet.[/QUOTE]

Pretty strong words. On what do you base that belief? I think in order to make an accurate judgement here, you would have to have read one of his magazine articles in Spanish, as it is difficult to evaluate some of his machine translated English.

[QUOTE]The similarities with Collina-Girard are interesting. Both apparently from Spain (or at least the Med region); both have an interest in the writings of Plato; both have a interest in a similar region of the Straight of Gibralter; both have communications with National Geographic; etc.[/QUOTE]

And apparently they have corresponded with each other.
[url]http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000741.html[/url]
"And everything knows to it because from September of the 2001, since he published for the first time in press means a summary of his "theory" has maintained contact by email with Georgeos, and Georgeos contributed all the tests to him that he already was before developing the theory. Collina-Girard promised in writing to Georgeos, that proxima time that spoke before means would rectify and say that Georgeos already was before. "

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]Interesting hypothesis. I suppose this picture could be anyone.

[url]http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/ayudaageorgeosenglish_archivos/image007.jpg[/url][/B][/QUOTE]

It could be his mom, his girlfriend, or his secretary. My point was that there is a feeling, an intuition if you will, that GD-M is a flim flam man. A secretary offers credibility.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]Publishing in lay journals is nothing to sneer at. [/B][/QUOTE]

No.. of course not. But as a researcher, one would expect that he had published in professional journals that are peer-reviewed. Peer-review is the standard by which the scientific community relies in order to govern itself. It's a very effective, sometimes brutal, standard that is expected of all researchers. It keeps people honest, careful, and thorough. Of course, one cannot normally get published in a peer-reviewed journal if the research isn't sound or credible. Pseudoscientists fear and even scorn this standard.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B][quote][/b][i]I believe that he is no more well read than most of the rest of the enthusiasts on the internet.[/i][b][/quote]
Pretty strong words. On what do you base that belief? I think in order to make an accurate judgement here, you would have to have read one of his magazine articles in Spanish, as it is difficult to evaluate some of his machine translated English.[/B][/QUOTE]

To that I concede. However, it is still my [i]belief[/i], even though it's based on intuition. I've seen no evidence that GD-M has any information [i]more[/i] than other enthusiasts on the web and plenty of evidence that he has [i]less[/i] professionalism/expertise/knowledge than an actual anthropologist or archaeologist (irrigation circles, extraordinary assumptions of smelting plants/roads/etc.).


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i]
[B]And apparently they have corresponded with each other. [/B][/QUOTE]

But have you noticed that all of the correspondance that has been mentioned between GD-M and JC-G has been mentioned by GD-M and his secretary? If we asked JC-G if he ever heard of GD-M, do you think he'd answer yes or no? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd be interested in it.

[QUOTE]But have you noticed that all of the correspondance that has been mentioned between GD-M and JC-G has been mentioned by GD-M and his secretary? If we asked JC-G if he ever heard of GD-M, do you think he'd answer yes or no? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd be interested in it.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so are you going to mail JC-G?

The particulars are here:
[url]http://www.mmsh.univ-aix.fr/laboratoires/esep/accueil/accueil.html[/url]

Already did it :cool:

Now we just wait.

[url]http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000736-2.html[/url]
Some news from Maria that I find interesting. She answers several questions.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NileQueen [/i][quote]If we asked JC-G if he ever heard of GD-M, do you think he'd answer yes or no?[/quote]
[B]Okay, so are you going to mail JC-G?

The particulars are here:
[url]http://www.mmsh.univ-aix.fr/laboratoires/esep/accueil/accueil.html[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]

I received an email from Jacques Collina-Girard and here's a tidbit of what he said:

[i]"I never heard about Georgeo Diaz before he contacted me by mail, protesting
that he said the same theory before me Š
But it seems this person is a little bit paranoiac ?[/i]"

and [i]

"we don't speak about the same things : I speak about a real geological
atlantis, in the strait, subnmerged, around 9000 BC, and I ask the question
: perhaps this real geological atlantis is at the origin of the myth of
Atlantis developed by Plato from a (real ?) tradition from Egypt.
It could be a coincidcence or, perhaps a real lindkage between geological
data and text analysis ?
Georgo Diaz speak about roman times and the cadiz area, he is not a
geologist, and he presents himself at a specialist of linguistic, but
anybody among the specialist of these text jknow really him

Scientifically the most interesting fact is the obvious possibility to
cross the channel in prehistoric times, and perhaps the problem of oral
transmission in hunter gatherer society. If we could find some submerged
prehistoric sites in this area it could be marvellous but it is not so easy!
_"[/i]

I gathered that he was not exactly thrilled with the guy, but he kept his feelings civil.

Jacques Collina-Girard is the [i]real[/i] news. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is the pseudoscience.

SkinWalker: [QUOTE]Jacques Collina-Girard is the real news. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is the pseudoscience.[/QUOTE]

You are making assumptions before you have all the facts, and that is a dangerous thing for a scientist to do.

Which do you consider the assumption?

That JC-G is the [i]real[/i] news or that GD-M is the [i]pseudoscience[/i]?

Or both?

:cool:

I would say both.

Yes JCG has published some papers, with some facts about sealevel, and talking about oral traditions possibly being used to track down and correlate artefacts.

He has not actually begun his investigation though, and won't do so till next summer.

We still don't have a site diagram or analysis of what we are seeing in Georgeos' underwater jpgs.

The difference between the two, however, is evidence.

Without evidence, there can be no archaeology. Only speculation.

GD-M's hypothesis is that a lost civilization called Atlantis resides in the west mouth of the Straight of Gibralter. His evidence appears spurious as it lacks provenience descriptions. His research seems to only appeal to myths that surround Atlantis or involve misread features along the Spanish coastline (features that any archaeologist or geologist should easily identify/verify). Most importantly, GD-M offers absolutely no context to the artifacts he's claimed to have located.

This is one of the most telling characteristics of pseudoarchaeology, for context is paramount to the archaeologist. Artifacts without context can offer only very limited information to the archaeologist and are nearly useless. If GD-M is truly locating and removing artifacts without recording their context and provenience, then he is nothing more than a looter.

Conversely, looking at JC-G's work we can see that his investigation [i]has[/i] already begun. Before any archaeological expedition can begin, there are months (sometimes years) of meticulous research involved. Going to libraries, reading journals, visiting historical societies, reviewing previous geological and archaeological research in the area you are about to examine, etc.

JC-G's hypothesis is that a land bridge once connected Africa and Europe during the late Pleistocene that would have allowed pre-historic [i]Homo sapiens[/i] to cross into Europe and perhaps settle in the landmass between until sea levels eventually rose to 56 to 200 m above the landmass.

To support this hypothesis, JC-G has cited previous anthropological studies that have demonstrated that oral traditions can lead to mythology with [i]some[/i] basis in fact, such as the "time of darkness" experienced during volcanic events in Papau New Guinea or the flooding of the Black Sea and great flood myths of the region.

For GD-M, the wonder of [i]lost civilizations[/i] appears to be the main theme, as well as the supporting theme of being the "next Schliemann." Ironically, Schliemann was the one who bankrolled the Troy excavation/expedition, it was Calvert that actually found Troy and understood what the features on his land represented. But I suspect that what GD-M actuall seeks is what Schliemann [i]did[/i] get: prestige and fame.

For JC-G, the wonder of human migration in pre-historic times and the implications this might have on anthropology is the main theme. That it might satisfy an old myth of a "lost civilization" is secondary and unimportant to the overall research. I suspect that JC-G would be just as eager to explore his hypothesis even if Atlantis were discovered elswhere tomorrow.

If you still think that I'm making assumptions, compare again: look at the claims that both are making. Ask which has extraordinary claims that haven't even mediocre evidence (verifiable)? And which has moderate claims with moderate evidence?

The only claims so far that I see that JC-G has made is that a shoal exists at a specific depth at a specific long/lat. Easily backed with geology. He also states that underwater geology indicates "notching" along the coastlines, which are consistent with former shorelines during late Pleistocene. Easily backed with geologic data.

GD-M claims that he's located an underwater city. No long/lat. He claims that said city has artifacts along the lines of that expected in a civilization contemporary to those existing at about 2000 b.c. He claims this civilization flourished 9000 + b.c. which is contrary to all previous archaeologic finds the world over. His evidence is photographs. No context. No provenience. No detailed excavation report. No support of additional scientific staff (geologists, oceanographers, cartographers, biologists, fellow arhaeologists... etc.)

At best, I expect JC-G to find some pot sherds and Archeulean tools. These will be significant to anthropologists and archaeologists who will be very excited to read his papers... but the rest of the world will be bored. No roads, gold statues, bronze shields, smelting plants/factories... etc.

I say again.

Jacques Collina-Girard is the real news. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is the pseudoscience.

Cheers. :cool: