Atlantis, Proof Both Ways

I am an avid fan of the Atlantis enigma. I currently believe that it did exist because to me the arguements for are stronger than the ones against.
Arguements For:

• Atlantis could have traveled to the south pole and became what is now Antarctica, this is by either a reversal in the magnetic fields(Hapgood) or an "intuder" large metoerite that caused widespread gigantic natural disasters
• The calenders for the ancient Egypt and Mayan civilizations are remarkably similar
• How could multiple civilizations get the idea to build pyramids, when they knew not what they were

Arguements Against:

• human evolution doesn't support the fact that this civilization would have had to been over 10,000 years old
• How could such a huge civilization just disappear without a trace

Both of those can be disproven, and with that lack of evidence, I tend to side with crazy egyptologists. I have researched this topic a great deal on both sides, and I find an overwhelming lack of proof that Atlantis was not in existence. I would like to know the view of the people, and I am open to changing my mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

• 
  I don't fully understand how the magnetic field reversal could cause a continent to travel. I do remember Graham Hancock had a dubious theory about it.
  
  Well they are both roughly a year. The maya had more than one calendar I believe.
  
  
  A pyramid is the most stable structure they could build with blocks of stone. It's not such a coincidence.
  

What would constitute proof that Atlantis was not in existence? It's very hard to prove a negative.

You should go to the only source regarding Atlantis - Plato's Timaeus and Critias. It is unlikely that Atlantis was anything other than the setting for his dialogues.

There was an Atlantis thread here not long ago as well. Do a search.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are two problems with this:

1. The Earth has undergone pole reversals many times in the past, but none of them correlate to sudden, inexplicable movements of large land masses.

2. The Earth has experienced huge meteor strikes many times in the past, most notably at the K-T extinction line, but there is no correlation between that and sudden, inexplicable movements of large land masses.

So why would either a pole reversal or a meteor strike suddenly cause a large land mass to shift, this time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also, please explain how the Egyptian and Mayan calendars are "remarkably similar". The Mayans had three different calendars that ran concurrently; the Egyptians had only one that was tied to the rising of the Nile.

Egyptian.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/calendar.html

Mayan.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html

Other than the fact that they both measured 365 days in the year (a fact which is readily observable by anyone who sits down for a year and watches the sun rise and set), I see no similarities.

 

I have to echo the posters above in wondering why the arguments for Atlantis are valid. Magnetic pole reversals have happened throughout the geologic history of the planet and, despite the ravings of mystery-mongers and sensationalist-junkies, there is no indication that they had any affect on flora or fauna much less continental distribution. I think sensationalists key in on such a thing because it isn't a real-time, observable phenomenon and they can convince lay persons that such things are responsible for the fantastic -nevermind the lack of evidence.

Maya and Egyptian calendars? What's similar about them beyond the number of days in the year? Have you seen both?

Maya Calendar
Egyptian Calendar

They're both depicted as circular. That's the similarity.

Pyramids are monumental representations of mountains. Building monumental structures as pyramids are natural evolutions in monumental architecture. The grandeur of elites grew from earlier, smaller temples and mastabas that are very different from their resulting pyramids. The pyramids of cultures like the Egyptian and Maya are also very different in style and form. No mystery here.

There simply is no evidence for the existence of an Atlantis.

 

Pyramids are also very stable. For civilisations whose masons had not mastered the intricacies of the arch and the flying buttress they offered the considerable benefit that they did not fall down easily. (Though google the Bent Pyramid to see that even here there were problems.)

Also, on a technical point your three 'arguments for Atlantis' are not 'arguments for Atlantis'.

1) considers two very dubious mechanisms for why we can't find Atlantis. That is not an argument for.
2) is the description of an observation (that has not gone unchallenged) that could be explained in several other, less contentious ways, and so is nor an argument for.
3) is an argument, at best, for communication between continents, but more likely for common sense prevailing amonst stonemasons whereever they live.

 

Yep, dunno if you've been watching oit, but there's a series on TV at the moment about geology (JOURNEYS FROM THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH, BBC4, Mondays, 7pm http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/earth-journeys.shtml), and the guy was in Egypt this week, explaining how the local rocks made constraints on what could be built, and therefore that limestone, being good in compression, was good to make large piled up structures, but when they tried to put a roof on parts of Karnak temple, it ended up looking more like a warehouse full of pillars (and having been there, the pillars aren't very far apart, and are quite thick, leaving little floor space.) because the stone was too weak to span very far.

 

I've only seen a couple of portions of a couple of the broadcasts. I'll probably catch the repeats eventually. I find it difficult watching as the presenter has a very similar accent and style of speaking to myself.
Yes, I've done the Luxor trip too. All impressive stuff - much more durable than your average Barrat house, though as you note, the lack of floor space is about the same.

 

I have read all of you comments and I fully agree. However, the theory that I am referring to with the "intruders" is that a large mass (about the size of 2x Earth) travelled relatively close to Earth, it did not come in contact with Earth (because then we'd be toast) but it did come close enough to influence Earths magnetic field enough to cause massive floods and earthquakes and volcanoes to erupt. This is alll expaliend much better than I ever could in Herbie Brennan's Atlantis Enigma. If you read it you will understand what i am talking about.

 

There is zero evidence to suggest that flutucations in the magnetic field can produce floods, generate earthquakes or induce volcanic eruptions.
There is abundant evidence supporting the various mechanisms that produce floods, generate earthquakes or induce volcanic eruptions. These mechanisms are not in anyway consistent for any causative role for magnetic field fluctuation.
Please do not refer to a unfounded speculation as a theory. It is misleading, inaccurate, and just plain wrong.

 

Antlantis was a base of extraterestrials which was blown up when they left earth
thats why there's zero evidence

 

If there is zero evidence then how do you know this?

 

While others are just sad.

SkinWalker asked you before: where is the evidence. The world has experienced hundreds of pole reversals. None of these has resulted in a redistribution of land. What was so special about the last one and the next one? Are you frightened to provide the evidence? Do you not have the evidence? Are we not worthy of seeing the evidence?

I am not a no believer, but I am a non-believer. [By the way I would advise against ever looking directly at the surface of the sun - that way lies blindness, and, some say, madness. Did you look at it Dwayne?]
Let's consider that for a moment:
The Sun's surface: gaseous; 5,000 degrees
The Earth's surface: solid, 15 degrees
Probability that their behaviour during a magnetic field reversal would be different: high

If there was an Atlantis in the history of the world.
Use a ruddy spell checker mate. Remember the words of Arthur Johnson: "The only thing worse than an idiot is an illiterate idiot".

It is the magnitude of this effect that we are debating. Since you have the novel take on the this it falls to you to produce the evidence.
You do know what evidence is do you Dwayne?

 

Rabon, you're the one who clearly looks silly. It's YOU that's claiming all these effects, so it's up to YOU to provide evidence of the same! And so far you've provided exactly nothing at all.

 

Do not accuse me of having no evidence! Everything that I have said here has evidence and if you really wanted to know it, you could find it. But if you are to lzy, which I speculate that you are, here are two fine sources that should shut you up.

The book that I mentioned earlier, that I am sure you haven't read: The Atlantis Enigma by Herbie Brennan.

And a show that is aires on the Discovery channel entitled: Killer Asteroids


Both sources prove exactly what I am saying, and both sources are surely up to your high scientific expectations. My theories are NEVER unfounded and I thank you not to accuse me of that again.

 

What makes one seem stupid is claiming that "the proof is just plain obivious (sic)" when you can't explain what that proof is. Rabon, your "proof" exists in your head. There is absolutely NO evidence that suggests magnetic pole reversals have any tectonic effects much less floral and faunal -and more than enough evidence to suggest that it has NO effect at all.

You started this nonsense in this thread almost a year ago. You apparently got pissed and deleted your opening post. Fortunately, I quoted the only text that mattered. I was wrong, however... the pole reversal was at the Matuyama–Brunhes boundary at around 780,000 years ago, not 730,000 (Bassinot et al 1994) as I had previously thought.

I think Ophiolite is talking to a deluded individual who has ideas in his head but hasn't actually studied anything. Come on, genius, cite some really cool references for us. How about the ones below? For a guy that "studies" pole reversals, I would have thought you might have corrected my mistake above rather than delete your own post in the linked thread.

In this post, you said "To begin with i find that the the earth had a magnetic pole reversal about 8,000 years ago, and that this event was world changing, disrupting human celluar proccess."

If you, indeed, had studied geomagnetic pole reversals, you would have understood that the last was .78 mya, not "8,000 years ago." What citation can you provide that demonstrates otherwise. What citation can you provide that demonstrates any disruption of the "human cellular process" at 8 kya? I'm well-studied in the both the paleo- and neolithic people. I know of none.

At best, it has been suggested, but demonstrated to be inconclusive (Schneider et al 1992) that impact events and glaciations can trigger geomagnetic reversals. There simply is no research that has demonstrated that geomagnetic reversals have any affect, deleterious or otherwise, on the flora and fauna of the planet. The fossil record apppears to be consistent throughout the strata that are marked by these events. No indications of mass extinctions in relation to them.

The citations are in your mind, Rabon.

references:

Bassinot, F. C., L. D. Labeyrie, E. Vincent, X. Quidelleur, N. J. Shackleton, and Y. Lancelot (1994). The astronomical theory of climate and the age of the Brunhes-Matuyama magnetic reversal. Earth Planetary Science letters, 126, 91–108.

Schneider, D.A., Kent, D.V., Mello, G.A., (1992). A detailed chronology of the Australasian impact event, the Brunhes–Matuyama geomagnetic polarity reversal, and global climatic change. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 111, 395–405.

 

Typical pseudoscience, woo-woo bullshit. The old, "the evidence is there for all to see/I'm not your personal researcher" argument.

The fact is, you've provided NO evidence of any kind. Woo-woos and mystery-mongers make wild claims and speculations, want others to comment on them, but refuse to actually discuss any facts.

Lazy is the one that refuses to get a real education and read scholarly texts and, instead, sticks to nonsense like Graham Hancock and Herbie Brennen. Lazy is the one who says there is evidence but refuses to discuss it. Finally, lazy is the person who spells lazy, "lzy."

Brennen is the nutter that puts a lot of credence in Hapgood's poppycock, right? If memory serves correct, I recall moving that novel from my local Half-Price Books' archaeology section to the fiction section. I browsed through it and noticed that he mentions a lot of "reputable sources" but I didn't notice any. Perhaps I overlooked the foot/end notes. The only "enigma" about atlantis is the willingness for mystery-mongers and woo-woos to buy into it. Now that is a fascinating subject.

First, I'm quite sure if either "proved" any of the nonsense you were saying in regards to a "large mass", it wouldn't be left to the popular media like the X-Files. Second, Brennen's novel is trash. I don't watch Discovery channel... so I'll take your word for the asteroid movie.

Your "large mass" speculation is completely unfounded. Very Velikovskian as well. The earth's magnetic field is simply not affected in that way.

 

Very well. Present your evidence. A brief summary of a single point will be sufficient, then we can discuss that.
In passing you might be interested in knowing what scientists and like minded persons do when accused of having no evidence. They produce the evidence and make their accusers eat humble pie. I suspect I shall go hungry tonight.

That is not the way science works. When you make a claim you are required to back that claim up with evidence - not demand that others find it for you.

Speculate away. It is as well founded as your other ravings.

You really don't understand what a fine source is, do you? Perhaps I have been too harsh on you: I didn't realise you were speaking from the standpoint of ignorance. Wingmaker, a popular fantasy book and a documentary on the Discovery Channel are not fine sources. They are entertainment. I enjoy watching programs on the Discovery Channel. I have learned a lot through watching them: but they only skim the surface, sometimes to the point of inaccuracy, often to the point of being misleading. Remember they are entertainment.

If sources such as those constitute the foundation of your speculations (they are not theories) then I shall routinely pursue you around this and any other forum I find you on directly and vigorously accusing you of spouting unsubstantiated drivel (or unfounded theories, if you prefer the euphemism). If you persist in it, I shall start accusing you of stupidity as well, though I rather think you do a better job of that yourself.

So it's not just me!

 

I routinely move trash like Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods and Underworld to the New Age section in Barnes & Noble. I just moved Bauval's rag there yesterday.

One has to have hobby.

 

Man, you guys are brutal. And I do admit that the Brennan source is not the most reliable. Anyway, considering that websites are the mose accessable forum here, here are a few sources to get the information flowing

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0619_030619_killerasteroids.html
This website is an article about killer asteroids, pretty self explanatory.

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/03/explorer_hobbit.html
This website is another National Geographic citing a species of small, large brained humans datimg around 10,500 BC.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-04-02.asp
This one is an elaboration on the pervious one about tiny advanced humans (the other doesn't give much information)

http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?riskpage:0;main
This one talks about the future risks of comet collisions

http://www.nineplanets.org/sl9.html
This one tells about the Discovery Channel program topic that I mentioned before

http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/4related.html
Probably the best of the six, this one speculates as to the dates of previous comet collisions with earth, and cites several sources for the information, very detailed and speaks on other subjects as well.

Scientists, now speculate that comet collisions with Earth are beginning to occur more frequently. There is more and more evidence (evidence presented above) that the dinosaurs were destroyed by these comets, and that the Earth has experienced them many times in it 's past. There is also resounding acceptance that these comets will ultimately end our human existance.