Philosophy of Science

[Bianca]

Mark

I also found this in the same thread:





Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 08-09-2004 11:38 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These were all good points Dhill and Chronos. As Smiley and I have been preaching for years, the evidence for Atlantis in the Atlantic is overwhelming.

As for the elephants, I don't think it's illogical for them to be in the Atlantic area if you take into account the size of the territory--larger that Asia and Libya combined!

A while back I posted this website showing where scientists have discovered mastodon bones in the Atlantic Ocean!



http://www.graysreef.nos.noaa.gov/information.html


Tom 



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But I couldn't find the item at the link.  So I pmailed him and he answered in less than an hour - bless him!


Here's his answer:



"Hi Bianca,

Apparently the agency reorganized their website for Gray's Reef.  Here is the new url

http://graysreef.noaa.gov/information.html

Near the bottom of the page is this statement.
Quote
Fossil bivalves and gastropods , and mastodon bones located in this area indicate that the reef was once a shallow coastal environment and an exposed land form as recently as 10,000 years BP. As a terrestrial environment there may exist at Gray's Reef extant prehistoric cultural resources.

This dovetails nicely for both Cayce and Plato, don't you think?

Tom"

 
 

[Bianca]

HERE IS THE PART THAT INTERESTS US:






Significant Resources


Gray's Reef is a submerged hard bottom (limestone) area that, as compared to surrounding areas, contains extensive but discontinuous rock outcropping of moderate ( 6 to 10 feet) height with sandy, flat-bottomed troughs between. The series of rock ledges and sand expanses has produced a complex habitat of caves, burrows, troughs, and overhangs that provide a solid base for the abundant sessile invertebrates to attach and grow. This rocky platform with its carpet of attached organisms is known locally as a "live bottom habitat". This topography supports an unusual assemblage of temperate and tropical marine flora and fauna. Algae and invertebrates grow on the exposed rock surfaces: dominant invertebrates include sponges, barnacles, sea fans, hard coral, sea stars, crabs, lobsters, snails, and shrimp. The reef attracts numerous species of benthic and pelagic fish, including black sea bass, snapper, grouper, and mackerel. Since Gray's Reef lies in a transition area between temperate and tropical waters, reef fish population composition changes seasonally. Loggerhead sea turtles, a threatened species, use Gray's Reef year-round for foraging and resting and the reef is part of the only known winter calving ground for the highly endangered northern right whale.



Fossil bivalves and gastropods , and mastodon bones located in this area indicate that the reef was

once a shallow coastal environment and an exposed land form as recently as 10,000 years BP.

As a terrestrial environment there may exist at Gray's Reef extant prehistoric cultural resources.


http://graysreef.noaa.gov/information.html

[Tom Hebert]

Maybe we should discuss if it's even possible to study Atlantis on a scientific basis.  Even if it is possible, is that necessarily the best way?

The Milos conference attempted to do so in 2005, but in my opinion the results were rather disappointing.

[Arcturus]

Tom, unless we look at the concept of Atlantis scientifically, it will never be proven. First, though, we would have to find something that we all agree fits enough criteria to be Atlantis. The reason why the Milos Conference failed is because they established the wrong set of criteria.  I believe they had a particularly narrow-minded closing statement, if I remember correctly.

[Tom Hebert]

Here are the criteria that the Milos conference came up with in an attempt to study Atlantis from a scientific viewpoint.

1. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been located where an island used to be and where parts of it may still exist.
2. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
3. The Atlantis should have been located outside the Pillars of Hercules.
4. The Metropolis of Atlantis was greater than Libya and Anatolia and Middle East and Sinai (combined).
5. Atlantis must have sheltered a literate population with metallurgical and navigational skills.
6. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been routinely reachable from Athens by sea.
7. At the time, Atlantis should have been at war with Athens.
8. The Metropolis of Athens must have suffered a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.
9. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have sunk entirely or partly below the water.
10. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 Egyptian years before the 6th century B.C.
11. The part of Atlantis was 50 stadia (7,5 km) from the city.
12. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army (10,000 chariots, 1,200 ships, 1,200,000 hoplites)
13. The region of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.
14. The destruction of Atlantis was accompanied by an earthquake.
15. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked.
16. Elephants were present in Atlantis.
17. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the destruction of Atlantis.
18. Hot and cold springs, with mineral deposits, were present in Atlantis.
19. Atlantis lay on a coastal plain 2000 X 3000 stadia surrounded by mountains falling into the sea.
20. Atlantis controlled other states of the period.
21. Winds in Atlantis came from the north (only in Northern hemisphere)
22. The rocks in Atlantis were of various colors: black, white, and red.
23. There were canals for irrigation in Atlantis.
24. Every 5th and 6th year, they sacrificed bulls.

More details about these criteria are at their website

http://milos.conferences.gr/index.php?id=2964

[Bianca]

Here is more on the mastodon bones:




dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 08-11-2004 10:35 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





That's okay, Essan, I like your comments~! Good scientific work is supposed to stand up to scrutiny, no matter who is offering it, and I've your particular scutiny more enlightened than most!
The passage I'm talking about from the Collins books comes from page 58 of my copy, under the chapter "Atlanticus."

It reads like this:

"What we cany say is that various species of mammoth and mastodon inhabited the American continent prior to the cessation of the last Ice Age, c 9000-8500 b.c. Conceivably, such enormous beasts could have been construed as elephants, invoking the possibility that they might have existed on Plato's Atlantic Island. In support of this theory Atlantologists cite the fact that mammoth and mastodon bones have been trawled up from the sea bottom by vessels fishing off the Atlantic shelf, close to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Despite such inexplicable curiosities there is no hard evidence whatsoever to lend credibility to the idea of elephants in Atlantis."

Collins' footnote credits Donato, A Re-examination of the Atlantis Theory, p 46, after K.O. Emery in Oceanus magazine. Hansen, p. 399

Now, I like Andrew Collins research a lot, but some of his conclusions often are kind of weird. To disqualify the idea of hard evidence of elephants in Atlantis, I think we both agree you have to know where Atlantis was. Collins, of course, places it in Cuba, and it's to his credit that he even mentions anything supporting an Azores Atlantis at all. Most researchers, I've noticed, either try to rip apart evidence that it may have been in other places or don't even mention it at all in order to support their pet theories.

Between, the elephant bones trawled up by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (and I'm still looking for the original sources and, of course, for pictures), the fact that the O'Briens have mapped out a sunken area there roughly the size of Spain, and that bigger parts of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were almost certainly above sea level during the Ice Age (which I'll get into later), the Azores becomes just as strong a candidate for Atlantis as it ever was, although, in my opinion it's not the only one!


http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,5655.30.html

[Gwen Parker]

Thanks for printing these, Tom:

1. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been located where an island used to be and where parts of it may still exist.
2. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
3. The Atlantis should have been located outside the Pillars of Hercules.
4. The Metropolis of Atlantis was greater than Libya and Anatolia and Middle East and Sinai (combined).
5. Atlantis must have sheltered a literate population with metallurgical and navigational skills.
6. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been routinely reachable from Athens by sea.
7. At the time, Atlantis should have been at war with Athens.
8. The Metropolis of Athens must have suffered a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.
9. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have sunk entirely or partly below the water.
10. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 Egyptian years before the 6th century B.C.
11. The part of Atlantis was 50 stadia (7,5 km) from the city.
12. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army (10,000 chariots, 1,200 ships, 1,200,000 hoplites)
13. The region of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.
14. The destruction of Atlantis was accompanied by an earthquake.
15. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked.
16. Elephants were present in Atlantis.
17. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the destruction of Atlantis.
18. Hot and cold springs, with mineral deposits, were present in Atlantis.
19. Atlantis lay on a coastal plain 2000 X 3000 stadia surrounded by mountains falling into the sea.
20. Atlantis controlled other states of the period.
21. Winds in Atlantis came from the north (only in Northern hemisphere)
22. The rocks in Atlantis were of various colors: black, white, and red.
23. There were canals for irrigation in Atlantis.
24. Every 5th and 6th year, they sacrificed bulls.

16. even though Plato mentions "elephants," I would say that mammoth and mastodon bones are what we are looking for, if we buy the more anituated time frame.

17.  "No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the destruction of Atlantis,"  I definitely buy that.  I'm thinking, though, if we find the ruins of a city well beyond the water levels of the last Ice Age, we might have to consider some new ones?

19. "Atlantis lay on a coastal plain 2000 X 3000 stadia surrounded by mountains falling into the sea."  I really have some problems with the size of that coastal plain as that is awfully big.

[Bianca]

QUOTE:


19. "Atlantis lay on a coastal plain 2000 X 3000 stadia surrounded by mountains falling into the sea."  I really have some problems with the size of that coastal plain as that is awfully big.
 
 
 
For sure, Gwen:
 
The Greek word for a measure of length called the "stadion", approximately 600 feet,  the length of the

most popular and probably oldest of foot races, the 'Stade Race'.

Singular -  STADION

Plural    -   STADIA



I thought I'd bring that up, since there have been arguments about the length of the 'stade', but nobody has
yet mentioned the actual, 'official' measurement.



Now, my Math is lousy and I don't have a calculator: 

One mile is 5,280 feet, so there are a little more than 8 stadia in 1 mile.  Right?

So, the whole territory would have been about 1,500 X 2,250 miles?

If I am wrong, don't hesitate to say so.  I really would like to know the answer, myself.

[Mark of Australia]

8. The Metropolis of Athens must have suffered a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.

...Don't they mean Atlantis instead of Athens ?....

I think they are spot on. I agree with those criteria .They basically point out Atlantis as clearly defined by Plato. And if that is what they say is required for a 'scientific study' of Atlantis. So be it.

They then say that therefore Atlantis does not exist because no place on Earth matches the criteria.... I think they (Doumas) are jumping the gun. Such a place may well exist.

[Mark of Australia]

Ok ,

Earlier in this thread we were talking about the supposed evidence of mammoth remains off Portugal and that we'd finally tracked the source of the claim ....

Well I have finally got myself organised ,I payed to view the article just to put my curiosity to rest and be sure once and for all...

Our suspicions were confirmed ... There is no mention in the 'Science' article of the mammoth remains being found off Portugal ... They were all from the American Continental Shelf . That IDIOT just altered the data to suit his view - Either deliberately OR unknowingly.  My money is on the latter ... his being so obsessed and deluded made him see the answer he desired ,since his theory places Atlantis off Portugal.  Damn fool


What a waste of ten bucks!!

I am cross !!!!!!!!!!

[Gwen Parker]

The biggest enemey of Atlantis research is that there is so much misinformation out there put forward by agenda-driven people that it is hard to separate the good stuff from the drek!

[Mario Dantas]

HI Mark, Gwen, Bianca, everybody,

Sometime ago i read this, and now i have found it again. It is an excerpt by Stephen Jay Gould book, "Ever since Darwin" that deals with the so called "Velikovskian affair".

We know that many fundamental beliefs of modern science are grows as heretical speculations advanced by nonprofessionals. Yet history provides a biased filter for our judgment. We sing praises to the unorthodox hero, but for each successful heretic, there are a hundred forgotten men who chalked prevailing notions and lost. Who among you has ever heard of Eimer, Cuénot, Trueman, or Lang—the primary supporters of orthogenesis (directed evolution) against the Darwinian tide? Still, I will continue to root for heresy preached by the nonprofessional.

( Stephen Jay Gould, "Velikovsky in Collision," Natural History, March 1975; from Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1977, pp. 153-159. )

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html

Atlantis is in need of an interdisciplinary study, because there is a vast amount of information regarding many Sciences inter crossed.

Just recently i have been talking with a Geologist and his answers regarding Continental Drift  are that not even Plate Tectonics are fully understood nor unanimously accepted by Scholars... Let alone anything else!

On the other hand, i learned that Geology is a Science with many uncertainties and the Older things get, the more imprecise they become.

Many theories are based upon other theories that are violently discredited by fellow colleagues which gives the slight impression (at least to me) that little is know from ancient times.

If two plates were once together there must be evidence of a crustal similarity, whether in the form of Stratigraphy, Archaeological vestiges of Fauna and Flora, and, or any other Geological characteristic that would confirm it,  for at least some elements have to be present!

That is to assume the Crust could never have changed its very Geological composition or Age. Science knows that the reheating of the Crust makes it younger, but unfortunately there is something they ignored all the time:

Atlantis was an ancient Civilization! It existed one way or the other, because we just couldn't be the sole developers of our Future, the Atlantis legacy is certainly present today in each and everyone. We think that Mankind started in the Paleolithic,  what a lie! We must exist at least ten times longer than previously thought. Not even Atlanteans were the first ones, as Critias states..

The present time ignorance regarding Critias is almost complete:

you Greeks are all young in your minds

regards
M

[Qoais]

Just recently i have been talking with a Geologist and his answers regarding Continental Drift  are that not even Plate Tectonics are fully understood nor unanimously accepted by Scholars... Let alone anything else!

On the other hand, i learned that Geology is a Science with many uncertainties and the Older things get, the more imprecise they become.

Many theories are based upon other theories that are violently discredited by fellow colleagues which gives the slight impression (at least to me) that little is know from ancient times.

Herein lies the greatest difficulty in trying to prove anything.  The timelines are always being moved backwards, new theories are no sooner accepted, than someone proposes a different theory and we're left to sort the wheat from the chaff.  If scientists can't agree between them as to what's fact and what isn't, how can they blame the general run of the mill interested party for making assumptions?

R. Cedric Leonard has shown that silt samples from the east coast of Africa do not match the same time period for silt samples from the west coast of the Americas - therefore, they were never joined - therefore there was no pangea - a solid landmass.  Yet when you read other scientific works, they still keep saying that it was solid, that Africa and America were joined. 

[no thing]

Bianca,

Using your definition for a stadion = 600 feet.

1 mile = 5280 feet

(1stadia/600ft) x (5280ft/mile)

5280/600 = 8.8 stadia/mile

2000 x 3000 stadia = size

(1mile/8.8stadia) x (2000stadia) = 227.272 miles
(1mile/8.8stadia) x (3000stadia) = 340.909 miles

So this would make the area 227.272 x 340.090 miles

ILAL

no thing

[Bianca]

Thank you, Ilal!

Must remember to get a calculator, one of these days......


b