deleted...

Even while reading your post, you knew yourself where the subject belonged. Within the text, you even mention that you knew where it belonged by hoping to avoid the moving of the post. It was from your own keys that you acknowledged it.

Bye

There are underwater structures off the coast of Cuba. Not enough data is in to determine whether they are natural or man-made but whatever the case may be, they are impressive.

Georgeos says he has found structures off the coast of Spain. He wants to believe they are Atlantis, but he does not have enough data yet. He has found some sort of archaeological remains and artifacts under the sea though. That is fact, not belief.

So why should you relegate the news of that tangible discovery to the realm of pseudoscience?

Actually, I think Georgeos is the epitomy of pseudoscience, specifically pseudoarchaeology. His methodology is poor, he uses the pseudoscientific habit of explanation by scenario, makes use of literary interpretation, and suggests several obvsiously spurious bits of evidence. What little intriguing evidence he offers cannot be verified, interestingly enough. Georgeos' casual approach to evidence is one of the more significant reasons he cannot be taken seriously.

Atlantis is associated with pseudoarchaeology because nearly every theory associated with Atlantis is seriously flawed and cannot be considered supported by valid hypotheses. In addition, those proponents of the existance of Atlantis in past human history quickly jump on every natural deposition, formation or transform that is discovered underwater with "unnatural characteristics." The undersea roads and columns near Bimini are good examples.

This is all without mentioning the HUGE numbers of people who associate Atlantis with some lost, ancient race that was far superior to anything we've known since and had harnessed the "energies" of the universe, pyramid power, etc. etc. blah, blah......

So yeah... Atlantean discussions belong in the realm of pseudoscience... if an undersea archaeological find is discovered.. discuss it as undersea archaeology. One need not create scenarios of Atlantis unless the evidence is produced to demonstrate it.

I think the Cuba locality is an interesting case. I doubt it was Atlantis... simply because it is too likely that Atlantis was created in the imagination of an ancient philosopher who needed to use a hypothetical civilization in order to critize his contemporary one without fear of persecution.

I'm an Anthropology major that is minoring in Geology. I can think of many causes for large blocks of stone with right angles.. both natural and manmade.

Finally... one last, compelling reason to look at Georgeos' work as pseudoarchaelogic is that he doesn't appear to have an education in anthropology. That's not to say that formal education is the only way to learn, but it is the best. Not only do you learn the current methodologies of your field, but you also examine a multitude of case studies as well so as to learn from the successes and mistakes of others.

Perhaps this is why Georgeos keeps trying to pass off agricultural irrigation morphology as archaeological features.

I'm not sure why, but I am quite offended by your actions.

You systematically deleted most of your posts from the thread above, then demand that the thread be deleted?

Because you resent being associated with pseuodscience?

You are the one that heralded this apparent fraud, Georgeos, as the Messiah of Atlantis. This guy has offered not one shred of evidence that can be substantiated that there even is an legitimate archaeological find, let alone that it is related to the mythological Atlantis.

His methodology is pseudoscientific even without the question of Atlantis... so don't give us that crying game that this wasn't supposed to be about pseudoscience. The only reason that thread didn't get moved right away (probably), is that there is no active moderation of the Human Sciences forum.

Incidently, anyone who reads the thread should make note of the quotes I made of Andre... these were probably the only relevant comments he made worth noting anyway... so all he did was make it easier to read.

You gotta love censureship.

I think your opinions are reckless and uninformed. While I agree that Georgeos and the irrigation circles is odd, his basic approach is a good one. His specialty is ancient languages. Rather than rely on translation of other translations he went back as close as possible to the source to analyze Plato's writings as if Atlantis were a real place. This is a scientific approach. Troy was considered fictitious too until Schliemann found it. So I wouldn't be too cocky about it being pseudoarchaeology.

He cannot reveal any evidence if he is negotiating a contract with National Geographic.

So what if he isn't an anthropology or archaeology major? I have to give him credit for having organized an undersea expedition and managed to get authorization from the Spanish government to pull it off. I expect he has an anthropologist on his team.

Then why don't you ask yourself? As an up and coming scientist, you really cannot allow yourself the luxury of personal bias. You have to analyze yourself as well as the world around you to get at the truth, which I believe is the business of science.

I think André deleted his posts AFTER the thread request.

You are making a gross assumption about Georgeos. Time will reveal if he is or isn't. I will wait until I hear details about his discovery. I think it is obvious he has found an archaeological site of some sort.

This looks like a pretty blatant and uninformed insult to me. You must not have read much of his stuff. You are making yourself look like a immature jackass here.

A meaningless and spiteful remark.

Really...? Because I've not been able to discern his approach beyond translating Plato's dialogs.

So he says... I've seen not creditation of his specialty as yet. I've searched the anthropology journals for record of publication (in both names he uses) and none appears to exist.

Schliemann and Calvert's work was a precursor to modern archaeological method... I see no evidence that Georgeos acknowledges this or even understands it.

Perhaps not. I wonder if National Geographic knows he's negotiating a contract with them?

Again, perhaps. But the only evidence we have that this "expedition" has occured is the say-so of Georgeos.


You're right, of course. I knew the answer to the question of "why I was upset." I felt as though I wasted a bit of time engaging in a discussion with someone who would later attempt to obliterate the record of the discussion. True, Andre started the thread, but the conversation ceased to belong to him once he invited the topic to be discussed. Too bad if he didn't like how the discussion went.

I don't think so... I think I'm dead on. But you could be right.

Rest assured, if he is proven right, I will eat humble pie and give him his "props" right here in this forum... but my money's on the contrary.

Sept has come and gone... October is nearly complete.... his promised press conference is due .... when?

I think it's obvious that he wants us to think he has found an archaeological site of some sort.


To that I will concede. I was, and am, a bit upset at Andre's actions. The fact that the only written record that exists is what I, and a couple others, have quoted should bother him. I attempted to make a point of that... now everything he posted will be taken out of context at best and it's his own fault. I don't prefer it that way. It's just the way it is now.


Yes, but accurate.

Although you may be right about Georgeos, you are unduly biased. Just because he does not have a reputation as an established archaeologist does not mean he is not capable of it. You don't have enough data to support your negative viewpoint. I don't have enough data either.

Well I guess we could always inquire.

It's not that he didn't like how the discussion was going. He just doesn't want to have any association with pseudoscience.

• First, his credentials are questionable. He lists many things he was involved with in his studies, but lists no previous publication in any peer-reviewed journals. He did, however, have many articles in secondary sources such as magazines that popularize pseudoarcheologic topics such as Atlantis and biblical mythology.
• Second, he makes no mention of his methodology, which leaves many questions such as how he could determine structures, or perceived structures, are actually "furnaces" and "factories of smelting." How was he able to determine that the rectangular items were of bronze? His website offered anecdotal accounts of evidence that is significant if true. Among this listed evidence is mention of "walls, roads, columns and enclosures" as well as "furnaces or factories of smelting with its granite crucibles, circular, quadrangular rest of dreg, flashes and ingots or [rectangles] of bronze"
• Third, he offers precious little in the way of photographic evidence, particularly none with correlating data that indicates provenience of the objects in the photographs.
• Finally, the overall provenience of each of the finds he describes is completely absent. There are no maps or drawings to depict where items where found in relation to each other. Nothing to illustrate the layout of the "walls, roads, columns and enclosures" that would offer any clues as to what type of society might have populated this alleged city. I remind you that this could easily be done without comprimising the security fo the site's location. Archaeologists do it all the time. In fact, a site sketch is basic method for any method of archaeology, even poor ones.

I think I have sufficient data to base my "negative viewpoint." I haven't completely ruled out that Georgeos might be legitimate... I simply state that it is improbable.

I already have. If I receive a reply, be it favorable or not, I'll post it here.

I can understand that. I wouldn't either. The fact of the matter is, it appears to have happened. He put the topic up for discussion. Whether the damned site is Atlantis or not is irrelevant. The methodology of the lead researcher is what is questionable and pseudoscientific. I won't mind at all if someone discovers Atlantis. It's not likely, in my personal opinion, to be there, but if found... great. The evidence will bear it out. Or not. But it is critical that researchers use good, sound scientific method and proceedures when sampling or excavating localities.

Right. So the thread does not belong in Pseudoscience.

IF he is negotiating with NG, he cannot. And you are strongly assuming he is not doing that. Bias.

It does because of the 4 points I mentioned above alone.

It does also because Andre's primary source (Diaz-Montexano) has not supplied any evidence that is confirmable.

And, it does because even though Andre took pains not to mention the name of this possible city, it can easily be inferred by what he typed and read by looking at the links Andre supplied. Atlantis: a well-established topic of pseudoscience. Whether he, you or I likes it or not.

I thought Andre did an exceptional job making a case for Diaz-Montexano... better, perhaps, than Diaz-Montexano. Especially given the fact that this "linguist" cannot speak English and obviously uses google or freetranslation.com to speak to the non-spanish speaking world. I was actually giving good weight to the things that Andre was stating and wanted to see what he thought of Diaz-M's poor methodology.

The negotiating with NG thing can only go so far. NG is not going to impede scientific method or discovery. They want to be in on cutting edge exploration and would like exclusivity, but they have little reason to fear some of the data that I mentioned above. What NG wants is visual documentation by their crews.... what information Diaz-M already has discovered could easily be released enough to satisfy critics and meet the needs of NG. That is to say, if he is negotiating with National Geographic.


Face it. The topic was always pseudoscientific and Andre appears to have become spiteful when he realized he couldn't control the thread. I'm not being overly critical or hateful, it is just what appears to have happened.

Andre did well in discussions with a lot of people who took a put a lot of time into the subject because they were interested. He shouldn't be able to censure the thread simply because he couldn't control it's direction or location in the forums. Deleting his posts was within his right, but this sort of thing should receive criticism from others in the thread in order to pressure others from stooping to that point in the future.

Okay SkinWalker person. I am probably wasting my typing here, because you are hard-headed and cynical. You have some good logic here and there, but your prejudices cloud your interpretation of what I am saying.
Let's take a look at the thread James R posted here in sciforums, shall we?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....threadid=18984
You can see elaboration in his post. I'll abbreviate a bit and do my own elaboration in regards to this particular discussion.



Andre has merely reported how Georgeos told that he has worked out a method to reinterpret the oldest translations of Plato's work and he discovered several essential flaws that made the current ideas of Atlantis into an impossible myth This was due to gross misintepretations of translaters over the past centuries. The real text of Plato was very different than what we read today. Now is that Pseudoscience?

Erick happens to have done the same with a different method and he also draws other but similar looking conclusions. Atlantis was totally different and it was well documented in other sources.* It's not just a myth with one source. I hope that Erick is still willing to recount his version here, despite the unmitigated glaring bias of "Atlantis is pseudoscience per definition anyway, no matter what."

So, dear anthro/archaeo major, what is wrong with studying the ancients and doing a better job? Schliemann did so with Troy. Nobody believed in the myth. But they could not deny the facts he unearthed. Nobody believes in Atlantis because Plato's alleged description does not match any realistic scenario. But again, translations appear flawed and exaggerated on many points. Both Georgeos and Erick caught that, each in their different ways and found confirmed scenarios through other sources. So what's the problem here? Andre has simply pointed this out.

Georgeos claims that he tested his hypothesis. Andre merely reported that.

If Georgeos is on the level, you can verify it. Anybody who can scuba dive can go and check if its there. But we don't know that yet.

Again if true we will see evidence eventually. That picture with the copper pin can hardly be called evidence of course. But Georgeos promised to provide the evidence at the start of that thread.

Georgeos clearly does and he knows that.

Well it is a finite area on the globe and well defined.

Georgeos may be wrong or he may indeed be a hoax. Time will tell, but that does not mean that Atlantis is now definitely pseudo science. Now it is Erick's turn; he also has definite ideas.

Absolutely. It most likely will be falsified but that DOES make it science, not pseudoscience.

This is highly subjective. Was Troy realistic? Was the earth being thought to be flat realistic? Whats wrong with a tale of a civilisation within the borders of the known world in the late Bronze age? It's nothing more than that. It's not about a big lost continent some eleven thousand years ago.
And so, Georgeos may be right, wrong or a hoax, but that doesn't make the whole thing pseudoscience. His methods may be highly questionable but that does not mean that the story is not just about a Bronze age city. Nothing about mythological middle earths wars, no dragons, no green Martians. Just plain logic, true or false. So why the biased contempt towards Atlantis? Why not think for yourself rather than with the prevailing herd of sheep?

Anyway I doubt that Andre will post again after the intended or unintended insult here.

He can be found here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdi...?s=&forumid=84
where there is discussion of the underwater Cuban structures
or here, with a lot of his ideas.
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/foru...asp?forumid=11
I'm a bit partial to those mammoths myself, but anything paleoclimatological has got my attention.

*Other sources, according to Georgeos. See what you can verify:

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb...ML/000693.html
5. In the Iberian Peninsula it has always existed popular traditions on the existence in Andalusia of a powerful civilization that had disappeared under the sea, and it has been always denominated to him with the name of Atlante, Antalu or Andalu. The Arab authors of the times of the Arab colonization of the Iberian Peninsula affirm that the primitive name of Andalusia had been Andalus or Antalus, and that this era the name of the son of Japhet or Japheto, like Atlas. One of the mentioned Arab authors, Attabari call, affirmed that to North Africa, in Andalus (Andalusia), was "Andalus, the City of Brass", which remembers ' oreichalkos' or ' it "mount copper" that describes Plato.
6. The annals and chronicles of the History of Spain and Portugal, from the oldest codices conserved from the Low Average Age speak of a genealogy of kings atlanteans like Atlante or Atlas, Hespero, Tubal, Gadeiro or Gadiro, Hispan, Hispalo, Oro or Sikoro, Ibero, Tago, Beto, Gerión, Herakles, Sikam, Sikeleo, Luso, Ulo, Head, Blunt, Palatuo, Erithro, Gárgoris, Habis and Tantalo, among others. The amount of these kings and the grouping within the "Dynasty of Kings Atlanteans", vary according to the different codices or annals. Oldest known they go back a.d. to century IV, although the majority is codices written between centuries IX and XVII.
They also credit all to these affirmations these authors:
Ptolomeo, ... Plinio,... Pomponio Mela,... Plutarcho, ... Salustio,... Luis de Carrión, ... Andrés Schotto, Estrabón, Solino, Homero, Virgilio, Plauto, Horacio, Propercio, Tibulo, Prudencio, Sidonio, S. Gerónimo, Flavio Lucio, San Gregorio Niazanzeno, San Juan Chrisóstomo, S. Isidoro, Séneca, Francisco Petrarcha, Luis Vives, Vicencio, Antonio de Nebrija, Ambrosio Calepino, Carolo Stephano, Conrado Gesnero, Lucio Marineo Sículo, Petrus Martir, ALberto Myreo, Nonno Monge, Servio Honorato, Luciano, Joan Sulpicio Verulano, Philippo Beroaldo, Jacobo Prontano, Domínico Mario, Juan Luis de la Cerda, Jacobo Mycilo, Helenio, Porphyrio, Landino, Hermano Figulo Ascencio, Mancinelo, Mureto, Nicolás Cansino, Abraham Ortello, Juan de Barros, Pedro Opmeero, Laurencio Beyerlinex, Solorzano, Primo Obispo Cabilinense, Francisco Bivario, Rodrigo Caro, Thomás Tamayo, Benedicto Pererio, Martín Delmo, Lorino, Joan de Pineda, Ludovico, Joan Bautista Villalpando, Cornelio á Lapíde, Gaspar Sánchez, Jacobo de Valencia, Francisco García del Valle, Francisco Gonzaga, Francisco de Salinas, Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, Sebastián Beretario, Simón de Vasconzuelos, Estevan de Paternina, Salazar de Mendoza, Borrero, Gil González Dávila, Juan de Mariana, Fray Gregorio García, Escobar, Verderio, Don García de Góngora, Alonso López de Haro, Jacobo Mainoldo, Velazquez de Mena, Fernan del Pulgar, Gerónimo Zurita, El Conde Lucanor, George Merula, Luis de Camoens, Manuel de Faria y Sousa, el Obispo Murga, Francisco López de Gomara, Benedicto Bordone, Martín Fernández de Enciso, Florián de Ocampo, Castrillo, Fr. Felipe de Gándara, Claudio Clemente, Joan de Alloza, Alonso de Andrade, el P. Alonso García, Don Joseph de Tobar, Fray Alonso de Espinosa, D. Bartolomé Cairasco, Antonio de Viana, Juan Nuñez de la Peña".

Good NileQueen person.

I made quite a long reply, but I think I'll move it to the "Some Archaeological News" thread, as this one is in the Site Feedback forum.

This is the post/thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....974#post455974