Atlantis Online

Atlantis => the Scientific Atlantis => Topic started by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:34:06 pm



Title: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:34:06 pm
This happens to be one of my personal favorites of the old threads, I'll print it here for all to enjoy:

Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-24-2004 11:03 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I saw the topic here on voting for Atlantis theories and thought it might be worth it to go at it from a different angle.
Instead of the best ones, which are the worst ones..?

1. The one that first sticks out for me is the Atlantis on another world theory, which seems to be what Alad Alford is saying in his book, "The Atlantis Secret."

2. Santorini/Thera seems get a lot of respect in the science community, but no one seems to have mentioned it here...with good reason!

3. Atlantis on Mars (I don't know who to credit with that one, but you have to admit, it's pretty bad).

4. Atlantis in Indonesia (oh, come on!)

5. Atlantis was a million years old (the credit for that one lies purely in the hands of Rudolph Steiner).

6. Atlanteans were the third of seven or so root races, one of which were their predecessors, the Lemurians, who were big apelike creatures that ran around with three eyes, inbreeding with each other. (Madame Blavatsky is ready for her close-up).

7. The Atlanteans had crystals (per Edgar Cayce). Those darn crystals have done more to put Atlantis into the "New Age" realm than anything else. You won't find any New Agers claiming the Sumerians as their lost paradise...no crystals!

8. The Atlanteans had guns. (Ignatius Donnelly wrote one of the most respected books on Atlantis, but no, no, no, no evidence of them ever having guns.)

9. The Atlanteans had flying machines and got into wars with the ancient Indians with them. (Where oh where is the evidence..?)

10. The Atlanteans had contact with ancient races or were themselves from another world. (I think that one speaks for itself).

Feel free to vote, or to nominate any other theory, book or author to the list. These are some of the things that have done the most damage to the cause of Atlantology over the years, people, and they haven't gotten their just desserts until now, so feel free to tee off..!

It's theories like this that have put Atlantean research right where it is now (well, except for Santorini, which is still considered "respectable"), a fringe topic people tend to place alongside Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster!! I happen to like creepy, unexplained things like that, but Atlantis should not belong there. It should be a topic of genuine research that a university can spend money looking for without a lot of questions asked, or researcher can tackle without having to ruin his career!

Anyone can also feel free to make a case why something shouldn't be on the list, too. Look at me as a prosecuting attorney and all these things have just been arrested for murder. Unless someone out there can save them, I'll be asking for the death penalty...


------------------
"Wouldn't hurt a fly..."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000901#000000


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:34:28 pm
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 06-24-2004 03:53 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I'm not going to say which is worst/best, as noone knows for sure what is fiction and what is not.
I WOULD like to say that, even though, as you claim, there is no evidence of the Atlanteans having flying machines/guns, there ARE Indian records of such things, so, i wouldn't rule it out; 'out there' or not.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1626 | From: Queensland, Australia | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:34:53 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 06-24-2004 05:40 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you suppose Sarmast, Georgeo, Girard, Wright, Kuhne, National Geographic, might come up with an answer this summer and make this forum moot? Stranger things have happened. But I'm sure, if one of them comes up with an Atlantis City limits sign  (proof positive, I'm meaning) there will still be several on this site who'll want to argue about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9904 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:35:14 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-24-2004 06:14 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
You're statement is almost prophetic. My academic peer-review journal article has already been sent to the Harvard Journal of Classical Philology for review. At the end of the article I have invited any and all philologists, historians, and Egyptologists to attempt to refute the results of my research.

In the article I reveal how the 14 names contained within the Atlantis story are nothing more than homographs in the Egyptian hieroglyphic language. When it was found what the homographs were actually representative of (again, in the Egyptian hieroglyphic language), it is revealed that the Atlantis story is nothing but a work of fiction and that no city of Atlantis ever existed. In essence, Solon used the details from the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples of ca. 1200 BC to create the fictional names of the characters and the place-names found in the Atlantis story. In fact, even the place-names found in the Atlantis story are shown to be directly linked to the homographs created in the Egyptian hieroglyphic language. He then used those names & place-names as a foundation for the creation of a fictional piece of work. It is not yet known (nor may it ever be) whether Plato was actually aware of the story's fictional nature, or whether he was simply repeating a story that had been told to him - or, for that matter, whether he in some way participated in, or contributed to, some of the elements of the story.

Of one thing I can assure you, though, and that is that the "Santorini as Atlantis" theory will fall out of favor with academics & scholars this year. In the article all of my work is based on the etymology of the words and I cited specific examples for each. I was also able to tie each name with its specific inscription and on a specific wall of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. So, although I'm sure many here will argue otherwise, the Atlantis mystery has already been solved.

I'm sure that you all had to have noticed that neither Georgeos or Maria has been posting here ever since I published my posting of the etymology and homographical reference to the word/name Leucippe? Why do you suppose that is? I'm fairly certain that I know what that reason is.

When I hear back as to the publication date of the article I will post it here so that you can all send off for a copy.

Warm Regards,

Erick W. Wright


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 06-27-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:35:37 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-24-2004 07:51 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick what about the city of rings? Was that all in Solon imagination to? Rock art of the rings are found all over the northen world. I still think Atlantis was part of Tartessus.

http://digilander.libero.it/theghost63/Tartessus/Tartessus_eng.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:35:58 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-24-2004 08:30 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tolos.de/atlantis1.E.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:36:18 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-24-2004 08:32 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however, good luck on your paper  :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:36:40 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 06-24-2004 09:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
docyabut,
the 3 concentric circles have been appearing since the beginning of mankind and for good reason.
Urantia
PAPER 93 - MACHIVENTA MELCHIZEDEK,

* line 46: In personal appearance, Melchizedek resembled the then blended Nodite and Sumerian peoples, being almost six feet in height and possessing a commanding presence. He spoke Chaldean and a half dozen other languages. He dressed much as did the Canaanite priests except that on his breast he wore an emblem of three concentric circles, the Satania symbol of the Paradise Trinity. In the course of his ministry this insignia of three concentric circles became regarded as so sacred by his followers that they never dared to use it, and it was soon forgotten with the passing of a few generations.

* line 59: The symbol of the three concentric circles, which Melchizedek adopted as the insignia of his bestowal, a majority of the people interpreted as standing for the three kingdoms of men, angels, and God. And they were allowed to continue in that belief; very few of his followers ever knew that these three circles were emblematic of the infinity, eternity, and universality of the Paradise Trinity of divine maintenance and direction;

PAPER 104 - GROWTH OF THE TRINITY CONCEPT,

* line 35: The third presentation of the Trinity was made by Machiventa Melchizedek, and this doctrine was symbolized by the three concentric circles which the sage of Salem wore on his breast plate.


PAPER 53 - THE LUCIFER REBELLION,

* line 90:
the banner of Michael, the material emblem of the Trinity government of all creation, the three azure blue concentric circles on a white background.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:37:07 pm
Catastrophe
Member
Member # 894

Rate Member   posted 06-24-2004 10:48 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Atlantis in Indonesia (oh, come on!)"
Zia Abbas' idea (I won't grace it with the word theory) has to be the most ridiculous ever - complete with hollow earth and reptilian president.

Sarmast's runs it a close second IMO - 5 million year old Atlantis in completely the wrong place.

 ;)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3324 | From: UK | Registered: May 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:38:25 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-24-2004 10:52 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
In one of the last links which you posted, I noticed a chronological jewel.
quote, regarding Tartessos,
"Jona tried there to go by ship. Salomon also sent ships to it."
endquote

Biblical King Solomon lived around 950 BC, which was earlier than any historical Phoenician remains from the western Mediterranean.


[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 06-24-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2423 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:38:49 pm
 
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 01:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
Looking forward to reading your article and the corresponding acid test it will be put through.
Why haven't Maria/Georgeos posted here since "Leucippe", is someone perhaps sucking the marrow out of your work..?

About the theories, I agree with most of them and would also like to add that Hollywood has also done a lot of bad Atlantis work, too, that has perpetuated the image. Crash Corrigan's "Undersea Kingdom" was very bad, along with the even more horrible "Man From Atlantis." There has yet to be a decent screen treatment on Atlantis. Dino de Laurentis was planning one back around 1990, but abandoned it.

When I was younger, I used to read comic books. Both the comic books "Aquaman" and the "Submariner" are set in Atlantis, and each one is a pretty campy treatment. In "Submariner", the Atlanteans are all blue-skinned. You don't how badly some of this stuff has gotten out of hand until you go back to the original source, Plato.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:39:24 pm
 
Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 06-25-2004 01:38 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty good Erick;
First Morroco,then Anatolia and now you give us the Steven Bernard philosophy of NO such thing exists.

Guess you'll be wearing those Oxford shoes soon enough. Are you also considering, if not already, becoming a Freemason and believing you came from Sirius?

Anyone who writes an article demarcating Atlantis would be worthy of mention in the academic field, right?

Easiest way to save Grace, no?

All that hard work to come up empty handed.

Geez,2700 years of work gone down the tubes.

Maybe for all you Oxford Monkies.

Too bad your brain buddies are all looking for Atlantis at the wrong time!

Sea Peoples of 1200 bC, what a joke!!
Sea Peoples have been around forever!

Let me put it to you this way in one word.

INDEPENDENCE.

And another word.

GREAT FLOOD.

All stories relate to this, all stories have humans becoming corrupted and God's inflicting punishment.

All point to an older time GREATER than 5000 bC. Not 2350, not 1500, but 5000 bC.

That is why all you scholars are frustrated and so eager to dismiss Atlantis because you rely solely on what is known rather than what is not known to avoid ridicule and embarassement so you can fit in the political circle like the Government Monkies.

Because it is until we make these UNKNOWN discoveries, which we will, that the monkies go back in their cages.

ALL signs, both Scientificaly, Astrologicaly and Spiritualy point to Atlantis, the legend that once had CONTROL.

Respected Ancient scholars swore to Truth and I will maintain there words.

No matter how inane you all may think I am.

Atlantis will be found someday.

By the way two questions Erick.

Since you've matched these Kings with this Rameses crap, what does the name Atlantis match to?

And;

Still awaiting a reply on Araklum?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4078 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:40:45 pm
cydonia

Member
Member # 282

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 01:45 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a touch of criticism, to one simple sentence of yours....All Atlanteans were not blue, otherwise Namor himself would have been blue. And he wasn't.  ;) He was Whitey. With wings on his feet. And he scrapped with the Fantastic Four a lot. Particularly with The Thing, aka Benjamin Grimm, of The Fantastic Four. Who, it just so happens, has recently been revealed to be a Jew. A Jew Superhero. Call Hamas! Jews and Atlanteans in a brawl to end 'em all!
The Inhumans are just as likely to be the True descendants of the Atlanteans as are the Namor Atlanteans.... Namor spelled backwards is Roman...that's where the name comes from... (I was weened on Marvel Comics)

I'm a comic book geek...  :)

Back to our regular programming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3849 | From: colorado, usa | Registered: Dec 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:41:22 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 02:02 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riven,
I didn't want to come right out and say it, but I agree totally with you on this. It' a copout to just say Atlantis never existed. No one I know here thinks you're inane, by the way. I've long been of the opinion that you can't either prove or disprove it's existence simply on linguistic evidence alone, especially if you're not even involved in any excavations involving it. It's a lot more "respectable" to the academic community to simply toe the typical scientific line, disavow it, the to stick your neck out and actually claim anything to the contrary. Why even come to the forum in the first place if it's simply to trash it's existence..?

Also, I doubt that anything anyone could come up with anything here that would destroy the Santorini/Thera theory this or any year. Not that I agree with it, but it is so firmly ingrained in the minds of the scientists too lazy to investigate Atlantis that they just commonly accept that as the basis for Plato's "myth."

On the other hand, everyone is entitled to an opinion, I suppose!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:42:05 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 03:35 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am eager to hear what the name Atlantis means in Eric's new translations.
I assume most people on this forum know that Eric's primary goal has been to have one of his Atlantis papers "published".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2423 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:42:49 pm
Essan

Member
Member # 1224

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 05:55 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst Atlantis book/theory? Arguably all of them!!!! Well, most anyway....
Actually, what I mean is that most books/theories are based on the assumption that Atlantis was a real place located in one specific location (be that Therea, mid-Atlantic ridge, Cuba, Sundaland, Mars, whatever). And therefore they take the possibly arrogant view that all the other books/theories, placing Atalntis somewhere else, must be totally wrong.

But I don't think there was a specific place called 'Atlantis'. Rather, Plato's story was based on a number of real places and events - which may well have included the invasions of the sea people, Carthaginian stories of a land beyond the 'Atlantic' Ocean, and older stories originating from the worldwide floods that occurred at the end of the ice age.

The quest for Atlantis is thus a quest to sort out which piece of the story came from where, and which relate to known historical events, and which to earlier events still ignored by conventional archaeology  :)

IMHO


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 394 | From: Evesham, Worcs, England | Registered: Oct 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:43:10 pm
 
Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 06-25-2004 06:17 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you Essan. Plato's Atlantis is most likely a mixture of history and geology from two different time periods. That's why nobody will ever be able to find it if they take Plato literally. I am more interested in the geological aspect of the story, so I voted for Number 1.
Tom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 813 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2002 
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:43:31 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-25-2004 08:48 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlante, didn`t most of us that do put atlantis around the 900 years before solon, agreed, there is a connection with the sea people of egypt? So Erick`s theory of the sea people is really nothing new.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:44:02 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-25-2004 09:15 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think Georgous`s translations, are the best in the finding of atlantis.  :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:44:23 pm
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-25-2004 10:04 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't put Atlantis 900 years before Solon. There's someone else here who also doesn't do it. Plato!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:44:41 pm
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-25-2004 10:08 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riven, Erick has no reply for Atlantis, how can he have one for Araklum..?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:45:06 pm
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-25-2004 10:16 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cydonia,
Was hoping someone here would bring up the Marvel Comics Atlantis. Lady Dorma. Attuma. Krang. Lord Neptune (someone should have told Submariner's creator, Bill Everett, that Atlantis is out of Greek mythology, not the Romans).

As I remember it, the Submariner would get angry and invade the surface world a lot from his undersea kingdom of Atlantis...my kind of leader! I'd to the same if I called the shots down there!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:45:29 pm
 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-25-2004 10:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to amend my list to also mention the awful Disney cartoons on Atlantis. Anybody see those..? Sure they were for kids, but they were terrible, the horror of it all...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:45:59 pm
 
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 06-25-2004 10:33 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I think about, "Escape from Atlantis" staring Jeff Speakman was a pretty wretched movie, too. All the Atlantean natives seemed to be either dwarves or pirates.
In fact, there's been lots more bad media done on Atlantis than good. Maybe, once someone finds the real Atlantis, they can get it all together, have a mass burning of it like they did to get rid of disco.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:46:19 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 10:46 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
I agree. Most people who favor "900" years before Solon probably assume the Sea Peoples were involved in the war with Atlantis.
But here is something ABOUT 9000 which the "old timers" may not understand.

The ancient Greeks had a name which ORIGINALLY meant "a number that is too large to count". That name is miliard.

But later, the word milliard became associated with the number 10,000.

So 9000 was once the largest number for the Greeks. Solon could have used this 9000 number poetically/metaphoricly to mean simply "the biggest number" of years in the past.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2423 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:46:40 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 11:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absonite,
Regarding:
"He dressed much as did the Canaanite priests except that on his breast he wore an emblem of three concentric circles, the Satania symbol of the Paradise Trinity. In the course of his ministry this insignia of three concentric circles became regarded as so sacred by his followers that they never dared to use it, and it was soon forgotten with the passing of a few generations."
In Dr. Felice Vinci's HOMER IN THE BALTIC he solves an old puzzle regarding the design of Achilles' shield. Turns out it is the "three concentric circles, the Paradise Trinity" with gold in the center, layered over silver, then I forget what.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:47:09 pm
rajesh

Member
Member # 1027

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 12:58 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Riven:
BTW in my opinion Araklum may have some similar meaning with Hercules:

Hercules << HarKulEs << Har Kul Esh

Har = God El or Shiva, Kul = Family, Esh = God

So Hercules = One who has El as Family God

Araklum << AraKulam << (H)AraKulam << Har Kulam

Har = God El

Kulam = Family

So, Araklum = Family of God El

Well, may be OR may not be...

With Regards...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1363 | Registered: Jul 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:47:30 pm
Jiri Mruzek
Member
Member # 2016

Rate Member   posted 06-25-2004 07:13 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I WOULD like to say that, even though, as you claim, there is no evidence of the Atlanteans having flying machines/guns, there ARE Indian records of such things, so, i wouldn't rule it out; 'out there' or not."
Bluducky,
See what googgles up when you type in Atlantean gunman'. Surprise, Number 1 is an article of mine "World's Oldest Image of a Firearm" http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/firearm.htm
It's just a curiosity. There is also another scene I found, somewhat like the one at Abydos. Unfortunately, it is hard to see, at first. If anybody wants to try, check: http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/debate.htm
It's the first picture from the top.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 46 | From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:48:17 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-25-2004 09:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very saddened to see that those individuals, who were so supportive just a week ago, are now the ones calling me an ‘Oxford monkey’ and insinuating that I have somehow ‘sold-out.’ Did an academic scholar, at some point in your life, belittle or embarrass you Riven? Is that why you are so hateful towards the educational establishments? I do wear a pair of Oxford shoes, Riven, but they are moc-toe, oxford-style, work boots, otherwise known as Indy boots.
Since you’ve asked me (and in such a nice way, I might add) what my research has indicated that Atlantis matches to, here is a lengthier, in-depth, examination of the word.

Atlas is a word formed from the root tlâs, the verbal participle form (i.e. ending in ‘ed’ or ‘ing’) of tlâo with the ‘a’ added at the beginning to make it euphonic (i.e. pleasant sounding). The definition of tlâo is:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tlâo – I. to suffer, to undergo hardship or disgrace (never like phêro, of bodily loads or burdens) 1. to hold out, to endure, to be patient, to submit
Source: Liddell & Scott (9th edition) Complete Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1996) – which includes a revised supplement


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

Due to the fact that ‘to endure’ seems to be the most commonly used meaning of ‘tlâo’ it is therefore the meaning that I used in my translations. With the meaning taken into the verbal participle form, ‘tlâs’, its final form becomes ‘enduring’. Upon reverse-translating the word ‘enduring’ into the Egyptian hieroglyphic language I found that its equivalent was ‘tchet.’ Due to the fact that the letter ‘t,’ at the end, has a hard pronunciation, it takes upon itself the sound of a ‘d,’ which causes the word to be spelled ‘tched’. Furthermore, the ‘tch’ at the beginning of the word has sometimes been replaced in modern times with ‘dj’, as the two sounds are very similar; this means that the final form of the word can be rendered as either ‘tched’ or ‘djed’. Many of you (I’m sure) are very familiar with the word ‘djed,’ with how it was the name of the sacred pillar or tree trunk worshipped in certain parts of the Delta in predynastic times, and with how it was subsequently symbolically identified with the backbone of Osiris. This is not, however, the only meaning of ‘tched’; it also meant (to be) stable, permanent, abiding, firmly established, lasting, enduring, the Divine Word (speech deified), something spoken, said, declared, told, narrated, to read a report, to tell news, brilliance, radiance, light, to shine, and pillar(s). Due to the fact that ‘enduring’ is the homograph (i.e. word spelled the same as another but with a different meaning and origin) for another meaning of ‘tched’, then that means that the original meaning of Atlas had to be one of the other meanings of ‘tched’; ‘to read a report’ seemed to be the most likely candidate considering that the first few names reverse translated as:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenor = ‘glorious’ = ‘âakhu’ = ‘glorious deeds’
Leucippe = ‘white horse’ = ‘hetch ses’ or ‘hetch-t ses’ = ‘chapel (of) Ramesses III’
Cleito = ‘celebrated’ = ‘ha-t’ or ‘ha’ = ‘wall’ or ‘back hall’ or ‘outside’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

…although I should add that ‘pillar’ could not be ruled out as another potential candidate. So, ‘tched’ (i.e. ‘to read a report’ and/or ‘pillar’) was the original word/phrase for which the homograph ‘tched’ (i.e. ‘enduring’) was used by Solon; ‘tched’ (enduring) was then brought into the Greek language as Atlas (‘tlâs’ the verbal participle form of ‘tlâo’). Atlas was, of course, the Titan whose punishment it was to hold up the heavens for eternity, and the Atlas Mts. (in N.W. Africa) were known as the ‘Pillars of Heaven’, therefore the associations of Atlas the Titan, the Atlas mountains in N. W. Africa, and Atlas as a pillar (of the entablature) were already firmly established in the Greek mind (cf. Atlantes, in Greek Architecture, were colossal statues that supported the entablature). An association with N.W. Africa and the west, in general, would have been immediate, as well as, with the Pillars of Herakles, I imagine, due to the fact that the Pillars of Herakles are found in close proximity to the Atlas mountains. This also brings into play another Egyptian word/phrase (‘semi-t’ = foreign countries, lands) whose homograph (‘semi-t’ = hill country) transferred into Greek as Gadeirus – Atlas’ twin brother. So, at this point we now have Atlas, whose name draws immediate association with the Atlas Mountains (in N.W. Africa), the Garden of the Hesperides (in the West), the West (in general), Pillars of Herakles, and with Gadeira (from which Gadeirus was said to be derived and of whom Atlas was a twin).

You can then add to all of this the words Atlantic and Atlantis, both of which are born of the word Atlas. ‘Atlantic’ (i.e. ‘Atlantikôs’) quite simply means to be ‘of Atlas’; examples of this word’s association with the Straits of Gibraltar and the Pillars of Herakles abound (e.g. “termones Atlantikos” (i.e. “the terminus of the Atlantic”) as ‘the Pillars of Herakles’ in Euripides’ Hippolytus 3, 1053). Atlantis, Atlantide (i.e. Atlantidos), and Atlantean (i.e. Atlanteios(on)), are merely Patronymic forms (i.e. derived from the name of a father or ancestor) of Atlas, and they also quite simply mean to be “of Atlas.” The names Atlantis and Atlantic are therefore nothing more than word-plays on the name of Atlas. Oh, that’s right, did I forget to mention that Atlas was also the Pythagorean name for ten (cf. Theologumena Arithmeticae 59)? Gee, now where was that number used in the Atlantis story? Oh, that’s right, there was ten kings of Atlantis.

So, when all of this is taken together and considered as a whole, it is then extremely clear as to why Solon (or Plato) would have chosen to place his fictional island of Atlantis in the far West, in the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, but in close proximity to a district called Gadeira, as well as, to have ten brothers/kings. Now, I will ask you again, “Where else could he have placed it?”

I would suggest that you spend a little more time investigating the Greeks and learning about their language and culture, Riven, and a lot less time harassing and haranguing every person who happens to disagree with your evaluation of the ‘mystery’ of Atlantis. You have attempted to make it seem as if I was ‘all over the place’ with my theories, or that I am somehow ‘flighty’ and change my mind a lot when, in fact, the core of my theory has not changed since the day I arrived in this forum. I have always maintained that I believed that the Atlantis story was, in reality, the story of the Invasions of the Libyans and Sea Peoples of ca. 1200 BC. I just wasn’t able to prove it until now. The only thing that has changed over time has been the location in which I placed it. When I changed my mind about the city’s placement from Morocco to southern Turkey (or the northern Levant), it was because I realized that I would never be able to find evidence to support a theory of Sea Peoples as far west as Morocco. Changing its location to the eastern Mediterranean caused it to fit in with the Sea Peoples theory and matched all of the available evidence surrounding them. Changing my mind to now stating that there never was a city of Atlantis has been brought about by all of the etymological evidence compiled in my research that indicates that key points of the Sea Peoples story were clearly used to create the main characters and place-names in the Atlantis story. In other words, since Atlas is nothing more than a Greek word representing the word ‘enduring’ which, in turn, was derived from the Egyptian word ‘tched’ (enduring) which, itself, is nothing but a homograph for the word ‘tched’ (‘to read a report’ and/or ‘pillar’), then it is highly likely that there never was any city named Atlantis (since Atlantis is nothing but a Patronymic form of Atlas, which means ‘of Atlas’). I have not completely ruled out the possibility of the existence of a city that the descriptions of Atlantis might have been based upon, but I do find it highly implausible that Plato’s 11,500 year old Atlantis ever existed. Additionally, the Sea Peoples were a loose confederation of tribes, many from the Assuwa (Arzawa?) League, and there is no indication that they had a centralized government or military; and because Atlantis can now be proven to have been created from the details surrounding the Sea Peoples invasions, their lack of military and governmental centrality must be taken into consideration, as well.

Lastly, Riven, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about in regards to your question about Araklum!?!

____________________________________________


Docyabut, thank you for the wishes of “good luck,” that are offered even though you disagree with my findings. As for the ringed city, and Solon’s (or Plato’s) source of inspiration for it, at the Mortuary Chapel of Ramesses III, at Medinet Habu, it is recorded that somewhere around the 11th year of his reign, and probably either simultaneous with, or after, the 2nd Libyan invasion, Ramesses III conducted a campaign in northern Syria. Scholars believe that Ramesses III borrowed these relief scenes from Ramesses II’s Ramesseum, however, it is, nevertheless, a possibility that Ramesses III did lead some sort of campaign in Syria, either as retribution, or to regain control over his territories. Any way, the reliefs show him attacking 5 strong cities. One of them is called ”the city of Amor”, two others are defended by Hittites, a fourth is surrounded by water and is believed to have been Kadesh, and the fifth stands on high ground but offers no identifying characteristics. The scene accompanying the inscriptions which list the Syrian city as “the city of Amor” shows a fortress rising in 4 successive battlements to a lofty tower or citadel in the middle; the walls are manned by bearded Semites, and a triangular banner waves in the wind above the citadel. Another scene shows the Egyptians attacking a fortified city surrounded by water, possibly a moat. Yet another scene shows the Egyptians attacking a walled city that stands upon a hill. The short inscription accompanying it refers to the enemy simply as “Asiatics.” The last scene shows the Egyptians attacking two fortresses, both of which are defended by Hittites, and one of which is named “Ereth.” I believe that it is very possible that these might have been Solon’s inspiration for his description of Atlantis, quite possibly by blending their individual characteristics into one.

Furthermore, Docyabut, I have never, at any time, ever stated that the Sea Peoples Theory is either new, or mine own. The ability to prove that the Atlantis story is, in fact, the Sea Peoples story, however, is new and is mine own.

____________________________________________


Atalante, my primary goal has never been to have one of my Atlantis papers published. The publication of my article in an academic peer-review article is necessary in order for my theory to receive the ‘acid test,’ as dhill757 has so eloquently and succinctly put it, the survival of which may very well lead to widespread academic acceptance of my work. My goal, from day one, has always been to find the conclusive solution to the Atlantis mystery, and it didn’t matter to me whether I proved its existence or refuted its existence, just so long as I solved the mystery conclusively. I believe that I can now show the evidence that I have done so. You are all, of course, invited to try and find a ‘hole’ in my research, but good luck with that endeavor!

Plato had a pretty good run of it; 2,350 years of keeping a mystery alive is a pretty impressive record, but now its time has ended.

Warm Regards,

Erick

© Copyright Erick W. Wright 2004

------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 06-27-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:48:36 pm
Ideopraxist
Member
Member # 1905

  posted 06-25-2004 09:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Jiri, I looked, cool website, I'd like to get one also. got myself alot of pop's looking at webhost stuff, BOO! keep looking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 220 | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:49:05 pm
Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 06-25-2004 11:40 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick;
Those Oxford Indy boots will come in handy with your running away from Atlantis.

Say what you like, there is no Academic Scholar in this world that could embarass me, I am my own man. Self taught,Self disciplined.

Not once have I said that my theories are right and that I would go as far to write Academia on my theories which I would argue are correct. They are just theories not facts that I have yet to address only when I am certain. Which neither I nor yourselves are as well. The last thing I woud do would be to write Harvard or Oxford, thanks. I'd rather preserve the legend if you don't mind, rather than put on a monkey suit. We know about their history keeping.

I would not embarass myself that way, we already have enough altered translations. I wouldn't want mine altered, thanks.

The reason you don't even have a clue about Araklum is because you don't bother to reply, or you detest my theories which is only research that I post freely, with no expectation other than to help us in our search for Atlantis. Which I look forward to learning from my mistakes.

Seems like your great mistake lies in the suffix of the word rather than the prefix, such as tlao. And yet you relate this word of Atlas to Egypt and Greece instead of thinking it may have come from Western Africa originally, where the theory of Atlas's origin lies also and the Atlantic which I'm sure you've pondered over before. Where did the Greeks get the word At la s from?, or At he na? Sure doesn't seem to lie in the ending of the word does it, rather in the beginning. AT. Then you can add the different endings like Lant, Las, tis,tic, oll, etc.

Ever wonder why the 40000 bC advanced Culture in that region was called the ATerians? Why would Herodotus call them Atalantes? Because the prefixes of words are native to their surroundings like GD in Iberia and AT in West Africa. Their real names aren't from Egypt or Turkey where we have KE or KHa.

For all you know Atlas could also mean Father's Son according to studies on that side of the Earth and words such as Ait which I've uncovered and are closer to this region and the Basques,Berbers, Tuaregs and Atlantis, like Atar.

Not once do I see anyone mention the word "grove" in relation to Leucippe which is also part of her meaning and how on earth you get Cleito to mean a wall or back wall is beyond me. I'll stick to emperor's favorite, thanks. Just because the word means something in Egyptian, it still doesn't tell us the true word in Atlantean!

You would have been one of the last persons I thought would dismiss Atlantis, in my disappointment Erick, I think your kind of putting the cart before the horse. A while ago in one of your threads you posted on defensive arguments for Atlantis and how we should bear this in mind when we defend the story.

Now your giving up based on "Who's conforming who's theory?" In how may places can you find the word Gades? Agadez,Libya,Gabes,Tunisia, Ghadira,Malta etc. Can you be so sure? Not to mention the other similiarities in Indonesia,Sanskrit, India and S.America, America where we can also find root words. Should you really base it on an Egyptian or Greek Translation without certainty?

Oh, I get your theory, "the Sea Peoples of 1200 bc was the Atlantean story but they didn't exist theory".

Right. Meanwhile the Greatest battle of that time was Troy not to mention Sea Peoples were invading Egypt a thousand years before as a matter of fact.

Can you say for certain that the words your translating are the right words? Did the word Atlas originate there?

Don't you think you should give it some more thought?

Since your envy focus's on yourself, maybe you'll understand how in Atlantis risen 570 bC thread, we have Araklum coming from the Etruscans in their mention of Greece. Since you are oblivious to this, I guess you answered my question which was if you had come across this word in your studies.

Well I guess there's no hope in your valuable research for any more questions.

Good luck and don't forget to tie your shoelaces so you don't embarass yourself in the halls of Academia.

That's right, just tell them what they want to hear.

Be a good monkey.

Doesn't it suck laying there at night looking up at the ceiling wondering if your Wright? Wanting to convince yourself without a doubt?

If only we had the real answers Erick. I don't think nows the time.

At least wait until the Girrard/ Sarmast expeditions are over. Maybe they will uncover something new? Some new hope? A new Lead?

Haven't other Sea People theories as Atlantis already been proposed to the melon heads?

[This message has been edited by Riven (edited 06-25-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4078 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:49:29 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-25-2004 11:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, yes some of us do agree that Atlantis was not the true name, however how do you explain Plato`s account of a city that sank in one night and one day?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:49:46 pm
Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 06-25-2004 11:58 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magii Rajesh;

Thank you very much for your input. Let's go back to Araklum in 570 bC, Atlantis Risen thread to continue this topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4078 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:50:05 pm
Jiri Mruzek
Member
Member # 2016

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 03:29 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideo,
did the gunman look like the real thing to you, and did you make out any of the craft in the other picture? Just curious.
About those Sea Peoples - they were relatively recent history to the Egyptian priests, whose records on the subject were surely still complete in Solon's time. The Egyptian records went back 8 millenia. Did they? Well, if not 8 millenia, almost three millenia of record keeping would not be out of the question, starting about a millenium before the dynastic period. Surely, any people who could build the Great Pyramid would have known writing well before then.
OK, let's accept at face value that the Egyptian temples kept written records. Good. Now, if those records were let's say 3,000 years old, why would the priests need to lie to improve the already impressive truth? So, knowing that they had records, and that those records were hoary with eons, why not take the 8,000 years at face value?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 46 | From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:50:55 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 04:04 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
I wish you good luck with your peer-review article. I have always expected you to get published, one way or another.
Perhaps we could say you are supporting/defending a "Medinet Habu" theory of Atlantis.

quote from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/habu.htm
The ancient Egyptian name for Medinet Habu (in Arabic the "City of Habu"), was Djamet, meaning "males and mothers." Its holy ground was believed to be where the Ogdoad, the four pairs of first primeval gods, were buried.

[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 06-26-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2423 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:51:21 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 06:55 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlante, a question, it seems even historians don`t know where the sea people came from.Groups of people that were gathered up to fight this war with the egyptians.So why do the egyptian or historians call this war (libyans and the sea people) lydia is a whole different name.Who were really the libya tribes with a connection to the Berger tribes? The head of the whole sh-bang  :)
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:51:42 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 07:22 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name Libya originates from a name by which the ancient Egyptians knew a particular Berber tribe, Libo. The Greeks used the name Libya to apply to most of North Africa.
http://www.worldinfozone.com/facts.php?country=Libya
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/Berbers.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7938 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:52:04 pm
Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 06-26-2004 11:55 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good point Docyabut, regarding Libya which we seem to understand that it came from the Berbers.
If we were to try to translate it into Greek or Egyptian it probably wouldn't lead us to the Berbers. But if we look at the origin of the word we have better meaning and understanding, such as Atlas.

Critias in his narrative also mentioned that Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia, or greater than for the other theorists. This statement also tells us that Atlantis was not in Africa or Asia originally. But yet we see the root AT coming onto the Western coast of Africa from Atlantis to Atlantic to Aterians to Atlas and into Atalantes as described by Herodotus,later to be adopted by the Greeks in their narrative of Atlas and Athena who we also relate to Libya. Which seems clear to me that as the Story describes Atlas as the first Son that it also notes the first migration that coincides with the onset of Atlantean control over the mediterranean.

In light of this, perhaps it could be conclusive that the Lake Tritionis region was a main Garrison for Atlantis to control the mediterranean and surrounding countries away from home after their demise. On the North side I lean more towards Italy,Sardinia and Sicily as strongholds after 5000 bC. Gadeiros was probably wiped out beforehand by impending disasters along with Atlantis on the western coast. In light of this we have Atlantis sinking at a time frame from 9600 bC to 6000 bC with the remaining settlements eventually losing their control upto 3000 bC and no later than 1000 bC where some of the Tribes that the Greeks and Egyptians fought could have been ancestors of the Atlanteans like some members of the Sea Peoples(1200-3000 bC) or Libyans, Etruscans for example.

Perhaps it was Atlantean bloodlines that built the Temples in Malta and onward to Egypt between 5-2800 bC.

So even though Atlantis sank and we know that they controlled the mediterranean, it seems obvious that their ancestors still remained for a period afterwards.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4078 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:52:28 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 01:17 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
You asked about the Sea Peoples (and Libyans).
I think we are off-topic here. But this is a very remarkable link, about how southern Italy started to be populated, beginning 1800 BC. http://www.arcaini.com/ITALY/ItalyHistory/OriginNameItaly.htm

There was a group in Italy called the Pelasgi, who were sailors. They are basically the same peple whom Greeks called Pelasgians. One of their great leaders was Oenotreus who led people west to Italy from the Peloponese of Greece.

Greek myth tells us that, when the Mycenaens began seizing and settling the northeastern Peloponese, Zeus went to war with the older Arcadian people, and their "evil" king Lycaon 2.

In my opinion, it was the Mycenaen destruction of the homeland of these Pelasgians/Pelasgi which converted them into a loose association of
Sea Pirates (which modern historians call the Sea Peoples).


[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 06-26-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2423 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:53:30 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 03:28 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...how do you explain Plato`s account of a city that sank in one night and one day?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't. I don't need to. The story has already been proven to have been a work of fiction.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...it seems even historians don`t know where the sea people came from.Groups of people that were gathered up to fight this war with the egyptians.So why do the egyptian or historians call this war (libyans and the sea people) lydia is a whole different name.Who were really the libya tribes with a connection to the Berger tribes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, they do have a very good idea as to who the participants were and from whence they originated. The majority of the Sea Peoples were from Anatolia and were members of a group called the Assuwa or Arzuwa League. Several of the Assuwa League's members were allied with the Trojans aginst the Mycenaeans at Troy. Other tribes of Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines, are known to have come from somewhere in the Aegean, but the 'smoking gun' that would conclusively prove their exact place of origin has yet to surface. Most of the evidence seems to point to Crete right now.

Lydia was a country on the southwest corner of Anatolia, and the Egyptians called the people who lived there around 1200 BC the Lukka. They were one of the invading Sea Peoples tribes.

The Berbers are the modern descendants of the ancient Libyans - called the Libu by the ancient Egyptians.

____________________________________________

Atalante,

Thank you for the wishes of good luck.

____________________________________________

Jiri,

The Egyptian archaeological record shows the Egyptians of around 9,000 BC to have been semi-nomadic, and no written records have yet been found that date back further than 3,500 BC. Rock art, yes, but no writings of any kind. That is why we cannot take the 8,000 years thing at face value.

____________________________________________

Riven,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those Oxford Indy boots will come in handy with your running away from Atlantis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only one running here is you, Riven; you're running from what you know in your heart of hearts to be the truth, but what you want least in the world to acknowledge. Tell me, Riven, what will you do when all of the irrefutable evidence is out there in print? Will you acknowledge it and accept the truth, or will you run away from it like scared little girl and continue pretending?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you like, there is no Academic Scholar in this world that could embarass me, I am my own man. Self taught,Self disciplined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't a statement, Riven, it was a question. I was merely trying to find out what happened in your life to make you so hateful towards academics.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not once have I said that my theories are right and that I would go as far to write Academia on my theories which I would argue are correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would argue that your theories are correct, then why not argue your theories with academic scholars?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last thing I woud do would be to write Harvard or Oxford, thanks. I'd rather preserve the legend if you don't mind, rather than put on a monkey suit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh. O.K. Now I understand. You would rather keep the legend alive rather than seek-out the truth of it all. Apparently the truth is just no fun for you. It does help to explain most of your theories, though, so thank you for that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason you don't even have a clue about Araklum is because you don't bother to reply...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riven, you seem to going on the assumption that I even remember you asking me the question, or that I have even read the question, which I don't, and I'm not sure that I have.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like your great mistake lies in the suffix of the word rather than the prefix, such as tlao. And yet you relate this word of Atlas to Egypt and Greece instead of thinking it may have come from Western Africa originally, where the theory of Atlas's origin lies also and the Atlantic which I'm sure you've pondered over before. Where did the Greeks get the word At la s from?, or At he na? Sure doesn't seem to lie in the ending of the word does it, rather in the beginning. AT. Then you can add the different endings like Lant, Las, tis,tic, oll, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Riven, it lies in the ROOT of the word. Apparently you didn't understand a word of my past posting, because I just got finished explaining the etymology of the word Atlas.

O.K., now I have to tell you, your stuff about "At he na", that's great stuff; you should take that act on the road. This is why I said that you really need to learn a little bit about the Greek language and culture. First of all, your understanding of the language being limited is evidenced by the fact that your breakdown of the word Athena into "At he na" completely ignores the spelling of her name in the Greek language. We derive Athena in the English because the second letter of her name, the theta, has a 'th' sound, such as in the word thin. While it is true that the ancient pronunciation of the 'th' sound was more like the sound found in the words hot house, it does not mean that it is allowable to split the two letters from which the sound is derived in order to make new root words. In essence, what you have done is to take the Greek letter 'theta' and split it in half! The actual root of the name Athena is 'theios', which means "divine". Once again, the 'A' is euphonic (i.e. pleasant sounding). Athens (ancient Greek Athenai or Athinai) is derived from the name of their patron goddess Athene or Athena. The city of Athens is quite simply "Athena's city", or "the divine city".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever wonder why the 40000 bC advanced Culture in that region was called the ATerians?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, because I understand that the word aterian is French and was derived from the arabic name of the city Bir-el-Ater, Algeria, near where the barbed or tanged arrowheads that characterized that upper paleolithic culture were found.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would Herodotus call them Atalantes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I really have to explain the word Atalantes to you again?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all you know Atlas could also mean Father's Son according to studies on that side of the Earth and words such as Ait which I've uncovered and are closer to this region and the Basques,Berbers, Tuaregs and Atlantis, like Atar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, it is known that Atlas is a Greek word; it was used in the Greek texts long before Plato wrote his Atlantis story. The etymology of the word is really not in question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not once do I see anyone mention the word "grove" in relation to Leucippe which is also part of her meaning...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, in Greek it certainly isn't, my good man. Leucippe is a compound word derived from the two root words leukos (white) and hippos (horse), just as hippopotamus is a compound word derived from the two root words hippos (horse) and potamus (river) which gives us "river horse".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and how on earth you get Cleito to mean a wall or back wall is beyond me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same way I found the true meanings of all the other names. I found that Cleito means 'celebrated' in Greek. I then reverse-translated the word 'celebrated' into the Egyptian hieroglyphic language. I then used the same word that had a different meaning (i.e. a homograph). Are you really not understanding the process or are you just trying to be difficult?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because the word means something in Egyptian, it still doesn't tell us the true word in Atlantean!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please pick up your Greek version of the text and find for me the word 'Atlantean', in Greek, in that particular passage (Critias 113a).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would have been one of the last persons I thought would dismiss Atlantis..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, I used to think so too.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A while ago in one of your threads you posted on defensive arguments for Atlantis and how we should bear this in mind when we defend the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I did. So, don't you think that I must have had a pretty important revelation to change my tune from "it could have existed" to "it never existed"? Think about it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now your giving up based on "Who's conforming who's theory?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, and I'm not really sure I even understand the question, but no, nonetheless.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In how may places can you find the word Gades? Agadez,Libya,Gabes,Tunisia, Ghadira,Malta etc. Can you be so sure? Not to mention the other similiarities in Indonesia,Sanskrit, India and S.America, America where we can also find root words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I can be so sure. Just because two different languages from across the world might happen to have similar looking and sounding root words, it doesn't necessarily have any importance. What must always be considered is the etymology of the words. How were they used? What did they mean? How were they developed? Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should you really base it on an Egyptian or Greek Translation without certainty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't certain when I began the translations, however, the results have convinced me that my hypothesis was correct, and the process is such that anyone can derive the same results from it. In other words, it is a hypothesis that can be independently tested and confirmed - a necessity in the academic and scientific world.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I get your theory, "the Sea Peoples of 1200 bc was the Atlantean story but they didn't exist theory".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, then apparently you don't get my theory. The Sea Peoples existed, but Plato's 9,000 year old, lost, sunken, continent/island did not. It was a fictional creation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile the Greatest battle of that time was Troy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the participants of the Trojan War were also participants in the (attempted) invasion of Egypt.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...not to mention Sea Peoples were invading Egypt a thousand years before as a matter of fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, I'm afraid not, Riven. Some of the Sea Peoples tribes were known to the Egyptians 250 years earlier, but not 1,000 years. If you're thinking of the Hyksos, you're thinking of a different people.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you say for certain that the words your translating are the right words? Did the word Atlas originate there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and did the word Atlas originate where? Regardless of your answer, I believe that I touched upon this earlier in my response.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think you should give it some more thought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My results speak for themselves.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since your envy focus's on yourself...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh???


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...maybe you'll understand how in Atlantis risen 570 bC thread, we have Araklum coming from the Etruscans in their mention of Greece. Since you are oblivious to this, I guess you answered my question which was if you had come across this word in your studies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in relation to Atlantis, no.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I guess there's no hope in your valuable research for any more questions.
Good luck and don't forget to tie your shoelaces so you don't embarass yourself in the halls of Academia.

That's right, just tell them what they want to hear.

Be a good monkey.


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

Again with the bitterness, Riven? Why so? Why don't you try arguing the points of the theory, rather than just insulting me and calling me names? Can't you come up with any good arguments?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't it suck laying there at night looking up at the ceiling wondering if your Wright?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You probably meant to ask "...if you're right?" To answer your question the way it was written, however, I would have to say "No, not really, because I know I am Wright. It's my name."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least wait until the Girrard/ Sarmast expeditions are over. Maybe they will uncover something new? Some new hope? A new Lead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that I can say with the utmost confidence that they will not find anything of importance relating to the topic of Atlantis, and neither will Georgeos. That is not to say that they won't find anything of importance, just that it won't have any relevance or bearing on the topic of Atlantis - unless, of course, it would count as where not to look.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't other Sea People theories as Atlantis already been proposed to the melon heads?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other scholars have proposed the theory of an Atlantis story/Sea Peoples story connection, however, they have been unable to provide substantive evidence from the text itself that would support it. That is what my research has done that is different.

Riven, in the future please do try and be a little less bitter, won't you?

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 06-27-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:54:26 pm
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 04:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... Children... you can't escape 'em...
Erick:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Egyptian archaeological record shows the Egyptians of around 9,000 BC to have been semi-nomadic, and no written records have yet been found that date back further than 3,500 BC. Pictographs, yes, but no writings of any kind. That is why we cannot take the 8,000 years thing at face value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, This is an assumption.
Just because there haven't been dated any pre-3,500 BC writings does NOT make them nomads -- This is opinion, NOT fact.

And due to the lack of accuracy in dating methods, who is to say that 9,000 BC couldn't have been 15,000 BC? There are too many things to take into consideration.

Where did you get this info?





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1626 | From: Queensland, Australia | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:55:01 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 05:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
I think I understand the process you are using in your peer review paper.
But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are using "homographs" (rather than metaphors)? http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAHomograph.htm

Here is the way a metaphor is explained (using the example of anger-as-fire):

After the argument, Dave was smoldering for days. http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAMetaphor.htm





[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 06-26-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2461 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:55:39 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 06-26-2004 06:17 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Eric Wright should have stuck to cabinet making. A Professor, he is not. I have nothing against the self taught; however, I guess spouting the official line is about the only way an amateur has of being published in a professional journal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:56:08 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 06:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluducky,
No, they're not really assumptions. They are the recorded observations of the Archaeologists, Egyptologists, Geologists, Climatologists, and every other 'ists' to have studied in that area. Those observations have been studied and compared against known factors from elsewhere and from during different time periods when writings were in existence to back up the empirical data, and hypothesis formed based upon that wealth of information collected from all over the world. Those hypothesis have been time tested and have grown to become full-blown theories, which will stand until and unless some sort of evidence comes along that can 'unseat' the current theory. As of this time, no evidence has come along that has been able to do so, therefore the current theory prevails.

Regarding Egypt during the Late Palaeolithic, once again, rock art has been found, but nothing that would suggest that any form of writing had yet developed. In fact, there seems to have been a hiatus in the occupation of the Nile Valley from around 9,000-6,000 BC, since no human presence has been attested in Egypt during that time period - with the limited exception of a group of very small Arkinian sites in the region of the second cataract at around 7,400 BC. This might be due to the increased rainfall in the Western Desert at that time (still only about 100-200 mm per year & all of which probably fell during the brief summer period), when we see people returning there at around 9,300 BC - a time referred to as the Holocene Wet Phase. The inhabitants were seminomadic and, again, no evidence of writing of any kind.

Please remember bluducky, dating methods have always included a percentage of error (i.e. plus or minus some percentage), and the newer and wider variety of dating methods used today pretty much negates the "dating error" arguments.

My information has come from a variety of sources that all seem to support each other - one of which is The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw (University of Liverpool), (Oxford University Press, 2000).

Why is everyone here so eager to dismiss the veritable mountains of information, compiled over the course of centuries, and studied and pored over by countless thousands of scientists? What needs to be taken into consideration by the people in this forum are the results of all of the scientific tests that have been performed over the last 100 years or so - results and tests of which most of the people in this forum are ignorant of. If a person wishes to put forth a theory that "flies in the face of" all of the carefully collected, tested, and studied data that has been compiled, then they had better have some very impressive and incredible data to back-up that theory. That is how the real world works.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:56:38 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 06:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atalante,
I believe that you may just be correct on that point. Thank you!

I will definitely make sure that you receive some sort of acknowledgement for this somehow.

Thankfully, I had brains enough (just barely) to not use the word metaphor in my paper. I used the phrase "to use in a changed sense". I had a feeling that metaphor wasn't the correct terminology, but I just didn't know what to call it, so I used the definition of the word metenanochotas found in the Greek-English Lexicon. Now that I do know the correct word, I can send a correction to the HJCP.

Thanks again!

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:57:03 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 06:39 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
I've never been a cabinet maker (or a butcher or baker, for that matter).  ;)

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:57:26 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 08:04 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, allthough I agree the second invasion between 1200-1176 by the sea people were the philistines (you can tell that by
the headdress) however what of the frist invasion of 1176?
We actually believe that the Sea People became active as early as the reign of Akhenaten. These were probably the Denen, Lukka and Sherden. The Lukka and Sherden are also recorded, along with the Peleset as serving as mercenaries in the army of Ramesses II, especially at the Battle of Qadesh. In fact, Ramesses II had earlier been forced to defend himself against attempts by the Sherden to establish a chain of efforts to the west of Egypt. They had arrived in that area almost a century earlier, and are said to have included the Libu, who would eventually give their name to Libya. An inscription of Ramesses II relates in the 8th year of his reign (which is dated c. 1176 BC):



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:57:52 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 08:22 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do have to go with Gerogous`s translation that libo was yberia or iberia, tharis a colony. What nation would have been the most powerful then with the tradeing of silver?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:58:49 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-26-2004 09:01 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An inscription of Ramesses II relates in the 8th year of his reign (which is dated c. 1176 BC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1176 BC would be the eigth year of the reign of Ramesses III, who ruled ca. 1184-1153 BC, not Ramesses II, who ruled ca. 1279-1213 BC.

I don't doubt that the Sea Peoples tribes had been active prior to 1200 BC, but they were active in Anatolia attempting to shrug off the rule of the Hittites.

I'm not sure where you got your info on this one, but the Philistines were not mercenaries in the army of Ramesses II, nor were the Sherden and Lukka. The Sherden did become mercenaries in the army of Ramesses II after their capture in the battle of Kadesh/Qadesh, but prior to their capture they were allied with the Hittites. The Peleset were unknown until the attempted allied invasion during the reign of Merenptah, who ruled from 1213-1203 BC.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, Ramesses II had earlier been forced to defend himself against attempts by the Sherden to establish a chain of efforts to the west of Egypt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are you getting this?

Warm Regards,

Erick

P.S. the Libu, or Libyans, had existed as Egypt's western neighbors for countless millenia. In fact, there's now a great deal of evidence to suggest that the early Egyptians borrowed some of their funerary and religious beliefs/customs from their Libyan neighbors.


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:59:12 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 09:47 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick look at the head dress in the reliefs of the second invasion, they are of the philistines and the minos cultures. http://www.recoveredscience.com/Phaistosebook09.htm

and did not inclue the libyans culture of the frist invasions with the libyans.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 09:59:37 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-26-2004 10:01 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now look at the The Sea Battle of Ramesses III's Encounter with the Sea People,everyone of them had that headress.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:00:37 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-27-2004 06:56 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
quote:

Why is everyone here so eager to dismiss the veritable mountains of information, compiled over the course of centuries, and studied and pored over by countless thousands of scientists?

Why..? Because these scientists weren't living in those times!

Not only is there the chance of human error,when it comes to archaeological evidence, some of this is akin to sifting through garbage. All that these scientists have to look through is only what has been left behind. Much of what scientists, especially Egyptologists and archaeologists don't know is simple guesswork based on the things they believe they already know, given only what they have to work with. Go to the site of the World Trade Center right now and try to tell me in 2400 years that the tallest buildings of the world once stood there.

Erick, I wish you luck on getting your paper published, as I wish anyone luck who is reseaching Atlantis.

However, I hope you're not basing your evidence simply on root words and linguistics. As I said once before, I doubt that anyone will ever accept that alone as evidence to either prove or disprove Atlantis.

As for the academic community, you probably already know this, but they aren't even interested in Atlantis. Jim Allen (the Bolivian theory) sent his Atlantis research to a professor at Cambridge who promptly sent it back with the note, "Atlantis is a topic of which I have never been interested." Disproving Atlantis is not something new to them, they don't believe in it anyway, and I doubt a way to gain any noteriety. They simply aren't interested in it one way or another, pro or con.

It's disappointing that you and Riven are now arguing the way that Maria and Riven used to argue, you once held some very thoughtful discussions. In the interest of civility, maybe we should suspend talk of your theory until we all get the chance to read and evaluate your paper. It's been my experience that some of the most knowledgeable researchers on Atlantis happen to be, not in the colleges, but right here,at Atlantis Rising. Like I said, there is very little interest in it in the universities.

As for everyone else, just remember, it's just an opinion, people. You don't have to accept it, no more than the opinions of Robert Sarmast or Georgeos or Ignatius Donnelly or anyone else's. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:00:59 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-27-2004 10:34 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
You're not making any sense. The pictures of the Peleset (Philistine) head-dress, shown in the links that you provided in your last two postings, are both from the same reliefs - those of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. Scroll down to near the bottom in the first link you provided. It clearly says Ramesses III.

In regards to the head-dress of the Peleset (Philistines), in his book Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea Manuel Robbins shows 26 examples of similar looking head-dresses, most of which came from the Levant & eastern Sinai Peninsula, around the Arabian Gulf. Only a couple examples were able to be shown from the Mediterranean region.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:03:46 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-27-2004 10:53 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhill757,
If we based science upon your reasoning, we wouldn't need to bother to study anything, since (according to you) we can't know anything for a certainty - only those things that happen during our own lifetime.

Yes, in fact I am basing my evidence completely on the etymologies of the words, which is the most sound basis upon which to base the evidence.

As for scholars accepting or rejecting my research, you seem to forget that scholars have already dismissed the Atlantis story as fictional based upon philosophical reasonings. They have just not been able to provide any sort of conclusive evidence to support that position. My research will provide them with the conclusive evidence that has been lacking - and it provides it from within the text itself, and it does so without requiring that any sort of translatory corrections be made. I therefore believe that they will welcome it with open arms.

As for Jim Allen and his Atlantis in Bolivia Theory, it should be remembered that one disinterested scholar at Cambridge does not represent the whole of the academic community that studies the Classics. Aside from which, Jim Allen was attempting to prove the existence of Atlantis - an idea that scholars have already dismissed based upon philosophical reasoning. The interest is there in the universities, you just have to know where and who to go to with it. It also depends a lot on what you are bringing to them.

Why should I suspend discussion of my theory? Just because Riven and I like to occasionally take jabs at each? Our discussions haven't degraded to anywhere near the level that Maria's & Riven's did. And who knows, perhaps if yourself and Riven open your minds a little, and attempt to learn a little about the scientific process, you might just come away with a slightly different attitude?

Anything is possible.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:04:06 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-27-2004 02:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, maybe you are right,and the egyptian war was only between the locals, where Solon got the stories. However Plato tells of of a land that sank in mud and earthquakes.It could only be Thira or Tharsis.Where would he had gotten such a story with so many details?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:04:32 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-27-2004 02:38 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to believe that Plato`s Atlantis had one million soldiers and 1200 warships and the Egyptians defeated them.however Erick I still believe Plato knew of a sunken civilization, and the only cule he gave was Cades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:04:52 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 06-27-2004 05:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg your pardon Eric. I should have said carpenter installer. You are still an amateur, by whatever classification. I think your research was 8000 years too late.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:05:30 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-27-2004 11:04 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
(I apologize in advance if this response is a little long and crabby)

And if we based science upon your reasoning, we wouldn't be thinking for ourselves at all, simply accepting the word of others because who are supposed to be more learned than us, taking their word that they are more knowledgeable than us, even though each person naturally comes to the table with their own natural religious, ethnic and academic predjucices.

(Not to even mention that science changes all the time, and the science of one hundred years ago is hardly the science of today, or will be tomorrow.)

You can't speak with any certainty that there wasn't any Atlantis. I doubt that anyone anywhere could, no matter how great an expert they happen to pose themselves. It's educated guesswork based on the only available information. Actually, the only things we do know anything for a certainty are those things that happen during our own lifetime, and even those things are up for debate sometimes.

I stand fully behind my original point, all you, or any scholar has to go on is simply what ancient civilizations have left behind, which is akin to sifting through garbage. That may be a hard truth for anyone in the fields of archaeology, Egyptology or any other field involved in history, but it is the truth. Try and tell me I'm wrong.

Humbling as it may be, there are no true experts, well, maybe, God.

Actually, it seems belief in God has always been a lot like belief in Atlantis, you either believe in it or you don't, which was, I thought anyway, one of the reasons we were all here to begin with (in this forum, not on earth).

Etymologies of the words may be the most sound basis of evidence for you, maybe even Riven or Georgeos, too. 99% of the public doesn't know what you're talking about and will accept only one sort of evidence: archaeological. Show me an original scroll or stone of Plato that says, "I made it all up..." or words to that effect, then you might make some converts. Short of that, all the root word, linguistic, derivative, cross-language comparisons will just be exercises for bored academics specializing in those languages, they hardly prove anything, one way or another. To really prove or disprove Atlantis, I'm of the opinion at least that one has to do actual field work.

quote:

"As for scholars accepting or rejecting my research, you seem to forget that scholars have already dismissed the Atlantis story as fictional based upon philosophical reasonings."

I haven't forgotten that, I'm the one that reminded you of the fact. I always said that Santorini/Thera was a respectable compromise to them. The sad truth of the matter is that they have been too lazy or disinterested to even investigate the topic.

quote:

"They have just not been able to provide any sort of conclusive evidence to support that position. My research will provide them with the conclusive evidence that has been lacking - and it provides it from within the text itself, and it does so without requiring that any sort of translatory corrections be made. I therefore believe that they will welcome it with open arms."

Actually, Erick, I doubt that, too. Scholars are not interested in Atlantis at all. They don't care to prove it, they don't care to disprove it. They are comfortable in Santorini. It will cause a ripple, perhaps, but after it's all over, they'll still embrace Santorini.

If you want to be welcomed with open arms, keep in mind that the mere mention of Atlantis has ruined careers of some professors. Look at Professor Charles Hapgood, who's research simply insinuated the possibility of Atlantis. He took great pains not to even mention Atlantis, this was a man that was highly thought of in his field before he published "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings."

quote:

"As for Jim Allen and his Atlantis in Bolivia Theory, it should be remembered that one disinterested scholar at Cambridge does not represent the whole of the academic community that studies the Classics. Aside from which, Jim Allen was attempting to prove the existence of Atlantis - an idea that scholars have already dismissed based upon philosophical reasoning. The interest is there in the universities, you just have to know where and who to go to with it."

Of course there is interest in the universities, but not in Atlantis, in Plato, and in the Classics departments. They are interested in the Atlantis theme as they are interested in all his works, the classics departments, not the departments specializing in history and archaeology. Incidentally, Timaeus and Critias are considered two of Plato's lesser works. It is only because they mention Atlantis that they get their high standing, and that is with people like us, not with the academic community. The more one learns, the less one knows at times.

quote:

"And who knows, perhaps if yourself and Riven open your minds a little, and attempt to learn a little about the scientific process, you might just come away with a slightly different attitude?"

I would, but I see very little scientific process at work here, nothing dealing with carbon 14 dating, archaeology or geology. Then again, to be fair I haven't read your paper. I certainly hope your discussions with Riven, or anyone here don't degenerate to the ones that Riven had with Maria. I've noticed you posted more often this weekend. Often, Maria seemed to think that she could badger people into accepting Georgeos' theories, of course you already know it doesn't wark like that.

Actually, Erick, it makes no difference to me whether you, or anyone here continue to believe in the existence of Atlantis, as I said, it just happens to be one opinion.

If you don't mind a personal observation,though, this latest theory of yours smacks of someone who is just fed up looking for Atlantis.

I think I read one of your posts once that said that the reason you were interested in Atlantis in the first place was to solve a mystery. Maybe that's the wrong way in looking for it, though, maybe Atlantis isn't really a mystery, but more like an algebra problem, if even that.

I know you've done a lot of research, but could it be that maybe you didn't dig deeply enough..? Becoming a little fed up is certainly how it looks from here.


[This message has been edited by dhill757 (edited 06-27-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:05:51 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-28-2004 04:20 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you drill, Solon as a poet might have traveled all over gathering his infomation , however he was a also a law giver in Greece and he did say the story of Atlantis was true. I guess we have to keep digging to connect those dots   :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:06:35 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-28-2004 04:42 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instance,look at this, maybe written at a later date, however scholars still don`t know what it means.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0000E3AA-70E1-10CF-AD1983414B7F0000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:08:21 pm
 
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 06-28-2004 07:44 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link proves the danger of trying to read more into things than might be there nicely, Docyabut. If there was evidence of Plato playing these kind of sophisticated word play in his other writings, I would say perhaps. There is none, so I fail to see why he would start so close to the end of his life, which is the time period that frequently when Timaeus and Critias are assigned to.
I disagree that word evidence has limited value, however, simply that one can't base an entire theory on it. Then, too, it could be when Plato's characters say many times that the story is "true", he means it is "true."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:08:44 pm
Smiley4554

Administrator
Member # 332

  posted 06-28-2004 10:45 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, now, guys. No one knows whether it existed or it did not. Let's get a grip.
As for all the theories listed, they're all pretty bad. The closest one I agree with is #10, and that's pushing it.

Unless, and until, someone or group comes up with a definitive proof, this debate will continue just as it has for thousands of years.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5792 | From: Arkansas...USA | Registered: Jan 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:09:16 pm
 
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 06-28-2004 11:33 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smiley girl,
quote "Come on, now, guys. No one knows whether it existed or it did not. Let's get a grip."
All you can really say is I don't know.
or you can say some people don't know.
You cannot say "No One Knows"
there is a lot that you don't know about what other people do know.
You need to get a grip with your outrageous generalized statements.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:09:34 pm
 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-28-2004 12:04 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats what I am saying Helios. Scholars can`t even analyis writings in strange languages from a few hundred years ago, Let alone the whole works of Plato and Solon in Latin and half missing. Although I think Gerogous is doing a pretty good job of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:10:02 pm
Ideopraxist
Member
Member # 1905

  posted 06-28-2004 03:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiri, yes I see what you see but I'd like to see it uncolored also for my own insight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 220 | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:10:36 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-28-2004 06:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Who said that Plato even knew about it? It is entirely possible that he just wrote down the story as it was told to him and didn't have a clue as to how they related to homographs in the Egyptian language.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, too, it could be when Plato's characters say many times that the story is "true", he means it is "true."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, there is only two references to the story being true, and that is in Timaeus 20d-e, where Plato (through the voice and character of the Younger Critias) states that Solon said that the story was true, and in Timaeus 26e where Socrates, who has just been told that Solon said that the story was true, refers to the story as "no invented fable, but genuine history...". Other than those two references, I know of no other point in the entire narrative in which Plato has his characters attesting to the truth of the story. And since Socrates is only repeating what he has just been told (like a parrot - Polly want a cracker?) then, in reality, it has only been stated once. In addition, both times it is mentioned (i.e., Critias stating that Solon said it was true and Socrates repeating it like a parrot) it is in the Timaeus; not once does the Younger Critias mention anything about it being a true story in the entire narrative of the Critias.

Not a real big ringing endorsement of its historical truth!

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:11:16 pm
 
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 06-29-2004 08:19 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it hard to believe that so learned a man as Plato would not have recognized the use of such homographs. If they appear in the dialogues at all, he must have been the one to have invented them.
Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.

From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction.


[This message has been edited by Helios (edited 06-29-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:12:09 pm
Jiri Mruzek
Member
Member # 2016

Rate Member   posted 06-29-2004 04:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice work, Helios!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 46 | From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:12:31 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 06-29-2004 06:01 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think the absolutely worst theory on Atlantis has got to be Eric Wrights, hands down, unquestionably without merit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:13:40 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-29-2004 09:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already know what I think about it, at least it's under the right topic...
[This message has been edited by dhill757 (edited 06-29-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:14:06 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 08:52 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Jiri, might I add, your research into Atlantis has been interesting as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:14:34 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 10:25 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget that Solon and the Egyptian priests were telling a story that by that time had already lapsed into myth or at least extremely ancient history, perhaps not being carried forward by the real true tellers of history/saga for thousands of years. At the point that it was written down, even on the stela in Egypt, it could have already been vastly different from the original facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:15:06 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 06:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios & Jiri,
O.K., first, why don't you two just kiss and get it over with. It's a veritable 'love-fest' with you two.  ;)

Second, and on a serious note, let's take a closer, harder look at your quotes, dear Helios, and examine them in the manner in which they were meant to be read - that is to say, in context and with the aid of logic.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.
From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."


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

Actually, Helios, this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a) in reference to the God who represents the Universe (cf. Tim. 92c, 27c), and has absolutely nothing to do with the Atlantis story.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About ancient Athens:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."


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

Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text. What my version, translated by R.G. Bury, says is "How, then, is this statement plausible, and what residue of the land then existing serves to confirm its truth?" This passage is found in Critias 111a, where Critias erroneously used the condition of the Peloppenesian Peninsula during his day (i.e., "...like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.") as "evidence," or "strong proof," of its former goodness of soil." He then attempted to equate the condition of the whole Peloppenesian Peninsula with that of small islands bare of soil. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that you don't see the flaw in that logic? Are you honestly going to try and say that the absence of good soil during Plato's day can be considered valid "evidence," or "strong proof" (as Critias says), that good soil used to exist???


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Atlantean engineering works:
"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."


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

In other words, even Critias (or Plato?)wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Timaeus:
Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."


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

Oh, o.k., so Critias, who (when he was about ten years old) overheard his grandfather tell Amynandes the story one time, told Socrates (who had never heard the story at all) that Solon (whom he had never met, had been dead for 200 years at that point in time, and was therefore unable to either refute or confirm the "truthfulness" of the story) had attested to the truth of the story. I think what Critias meant to say was that the Elder Critias, whom (mind you) had not heard the story from Solon himself, but rather from Dropides, said that Dropides said that Solon attested to the truth of the story. Critias (the Elder) said, that Critias (the Younger) said, that Dropides said, that Solon said, that the old Egyptian priest said... There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:
Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"


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

Just to save time, refer to my previous comment.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again concerning the war:
Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"


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

Squawk! Polly want a cracker?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Where? Plato never once said it himself. Instead, he created a dialogue between 4 people and has one of those 4 people saying its true. I believe this is what's called "plausible deniability."

Is that all you can come up with, Helios? Noncontextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator's own statement of incredulity?

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:15:38 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 07:05 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig & dhill757,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think the absolutely worst theory on Atlantis has got to be Eric Wrights, hands down, unquestionably without merit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without merit, eh? I'll just consider the source, Brig, seeing as how you haven't been able to offer up a single intelligible argument to show why it is supposedly "without merit."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already know what I think about it, at least it's under the right topic...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, dhill757, it really does deserve its own thread! So kind of you to suggest it.

To both of you,

Instead of basing your position that Atlantis is real upon the desire for it to be such, why don't you try basing it on evidence?

BTW, the insults would really hurt...if I cared, that is. Remember, thick skin?

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:16:05 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 07:10 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig & dhill757,
The fact that the results of my research (I haven't formed a theory, but merely reported on the results of my research) bothers you soooooo much tells me that it must be right! (chuckle)  ;)


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:16:24 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 06-30-2004 08:14 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick like I said, maybe Solon might have collected all these stories and Plato interpretated through his dialogues, however I`m sure no ancient would forget of a land that sank and went beneath the waves   :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:17:01 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 06-30-2004 09:29 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, Erick, Erick....
(I apologize in advance again if this gets a little too hostile)

Right? Don't flatter yourself. You can place Atlantis anywhere in the world right now and I don't think I would believe you. As I told you before, I don't particularly care if you believe in Atlantis at all.

Having just read what you wrote to myself, Brig and Helios, it seems you've taken a page from the Maria playbook. If you can't attack the research, attack the messenger, label personal attacks, then claim everyone is attacking you so to escape the same claim:

quote:

Helios & Jiri,
"O.K., first, why don't you two just kiss and get it over with. It's a veritable 'love-fest' with you two."

Pretty low, both these guys are new members here, I've read posts from each of them and each of them has brought more to the table here than you have. Even if you were just being "funny", they don't know you that well yet (maybe they won't want to either).

quote:

Refuting Helios' quotes:

"Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text."

"There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!"

"Just to save time, refer to my previous comment."

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

"Is that all you can come up with, Helios? Noncontextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator's own statement of incredulity?"

That's how you refute the guy's comments, with your own personal opinions, your own false logic, your own erroneous comparisons and your own dumb little quips..? I hope, for your sake, your paper reads more intelligently than this" passage" just did and that there are no references to Polly in it. Maybe you can get away with that kind insult-laden, fact-bereft response here, but in the academic community, you're going to have to use actual logic, supported by real facts, to prove your case. Any fool can see that Helios did a more than credible job, one more respectful to you than you might deserve, I might add, considering your response to him, of refuting your basic premise, which is the story is some root word, snickering little linguistic, cross language exercise in eptimology. Oh, yes, we're all feeling so threatened... I think the point he is trying to make, Polly aside, was that Plato meant for the story to be taken as TRUE. I guess that two references as opposed to six make all the difference to you, right..?

All it shows to me is that your grasp of the material was pretty bad to begin with. To be honest, I think I always thought that, reading some of your previous posts. Tonight, from this perspective, it looks like you have very little respect for it as well. Also that you maybe have a pretty bad copy of the dialogues which is maybe part of your problem. Which brings me to the logical question, if you were always that interested in the Sea People, not Atlantis, why did Atlantis even have to play a part in your stillborn, ill-conceived research in the first place? To give it more commercial appeal..?

It's astounding the lengths that the human mind will go to to justify itself. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought I was back in the good old days where Maria would call someone MEDIOCORE, UNSCIENTIFIC, EVIL when they didn't agree with her rather than to address the point scientifically.

That isn't science, that is slander. You knock Brig, saying he hasn't been able to offer "a single intelligible argument to show why it is supposedly "without merit." Why should he need to? You haven't offered a "single, intelligible argument" to prove your case. (Maybe it's all in the paper). I can tell by your enthusiasm that you're eager to get this paper published...maybe a little too eager to get published..? I suppose any material about Atlantis these days has to be "new" and "cutting edge" to be published these days. Sad when that becomes more important than a sincere quest for the truth.

Erick's point for those of you who haven't got it yet:

Plato: dumb old guy tricked into writing about Atlantis.

[This message has been edited by dhill757 (edited 06-30-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:17:21 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 06-30-2004 11:09 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick was certain he was right when he insisted the sea kings were where Atlantis came from. Then he was certain that Atlantis was somewhere in Turkey; now he's certain it never existed at all. Erick Wright has been a pompus *ss since he entered this site. No theory of Atlantis can possibly be right unless he is the sponsor of it. Nuts, he's been all over the place and because he can't prove anything he thinks that Plato made the whole thing up. Nuts to you Erick....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:17:54 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-01-2004 07:59 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far be it from me to add to your troubles, Erick, I notice you are having several disagreements with others on this site, but you are wrong on several key points on Plato, and your treatment of the quotes I provided was less than fair and honest. In the interest of clarity, and so as not to mislead the others who come here who have come her to honestly study of Atlantis, I think I had best work to correct them.
From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

You said:

"this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a) in reference to the God who represents the Universe (cf.Tim. 92c, 27c), and has absolutely nothing to do with the Atlantis story."

Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact, introducing the various details of both ancient Athens and Atlantis. The dialogue deals almost exclusively with Athens and Atlantis, the gods are only mentioned passing, the universe not at all. Anyone is invited to read the whole of the Critias and see how much weight either topic is given to either topic by comparison.

quote:

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

You wrote:

"Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text. What my version, translated by R.G. Bury says is "How, then, is this statement plausible, and what residue of the land then existing serves to confirm its truth?"

The quote comes from the Jowett translation. If you aren’t familiar with it, perhaps you should be as it is perhaps the most respected and commonly used of all the translations. The full quote reads as follows:

“Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true, that the boundaries were in those days fixed by the Isthmus, and that in the direction of the continent they extended as far as the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; the boundary line came down in the direction of the sea, having the district of Oropus on the right, and with the river Asopus as the limit on the left.”

We can mince words as we like, but the mere fact that the narrator is giving details to support his claim can be taken as proof that he believes it to be taken as “true.”

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

You wrote:

"In other words, even Critias (or Plato?)wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!"

Your interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove your point. I take it that Plato is simply realizing that he is describing a spectacular engineering feat (the ditch around the flat, rectangular plain) as a man of his era might well do. Perhaps in your day, you might use the words, “geewhiz!” or “gosh!” or “golly!” to express yourself about a similar object you found incredible.

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Of this you wrote:

"There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!"

A rather pedestrian approach for someone who purports to be a scholar to take, don’t you think? Conveniently, you left out the part this part from the dialogues, if you were even aware of it at all:

from Critias:

“My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced. The tale, which was of great length, began as follows:”

Apparently, your point on “hearsay” was a bit misguided, it was not hearsay, but a story in writing. I'll spend more time on this point since it seems central to your basic logic - a manuscript. Three times, the Atlantis tale saw writing, that we know - the pillars at the Temple of Neith where Solon got the original story, the manuscript in Critias’ possession, and, of course, Plato’s dialogues. But even if there was no manuscript at all, and the story was passed down sheerly from oral tradition, this would not have been uncommon among the ancient people. If memory serves, many of the early books of the Bible were passed down in the same way. Before writing, this was a common practice.

quote:

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Of which, you wrote:

"Just to save time, refer to my previous comment."

Which, I remind you, carries even less weight now.
(See my previous statement.)

quote:

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Of which, you so articulately wrote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I believe that quote speaks for itself.

And then, my own quote:

Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true.

And then, you wrote:

"Really? Where? Plato never once said it himself. Instead, he created a dialogue between 4 people and has one of those 4 people saying its true. I believe this is what's called "plausible deniability.""

No, it isn’t, it’s called a “Greek dialogue.” Perhaps you’ve heard of one, they were common in their day. Where does Plato say that the story is true..? I count six times, I could perhaps I find more less obvious references if I dug even even more deeply into it. Critias, being the narrator, will naturally speak of the truth of the tale more than those he cares to enlighten. Indeed, he would also be the one to do most of the talking, as, in fact, he does. If you truly believe Plato is not attesting to it’s truth, than perhaps both dialogues also simply appeared out of thin air, without the trouble of even having an author at all.

And then, you kindly wrote to me:

"Is that all you can come up with, Helios? Noncontextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator's own statement of incredulity?"

Mind you, I don’t view this as some sort of a competition, I merely wanted to clear up some misconceptions among those who read your material and might become misled by it. Having said that, however, I fully believe that I could disect each of your theories, premises and conclusions with an equal success if they are presented as badly as this one was. Your own logic is quite suspect and your train of thought seems to wander, at times even towards the comic. Additionally, the research I see from you also appears a bit sloppy and incomplete. I shudder to think of you in an academic environment if you bring up things like "parrots" and “bored 1950’s housewives” in order to make your points.

Mind you, I don’t know much about you, nor why you have engendered such hostility in others, but in my opinion you have yet to gain a proper command of the material at hand. It is clear now as well why there is some confusion here about the dialogues if this is how you disseminated this information. I suggest returning to the material and this time a more thorough, intuitive study. Don’t simply assume Plato is trying to trick you, try to “feel” the words, their basic truth. Often things are just as they appear to be. The story of Atlantis is hardly new, but as old as antiquity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:18:32 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-01-2004 03:57 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid thinking Helios. The search continues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:19:39 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-01-2004 04:00 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid thinking Helios. The search continues. Good-bye Mr. Chips...er I mean Mr. Wright.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000901;p=3


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:20:14 pm
Jiri Mruzek
Member
Member # 2016

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 03:23 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Helios answered Erick's complaints so comprehensively, I'll focus on just one gem from Erick.
Erick Wright said: "Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text. What my version, translated by R.G. Bury, says is "How, then, is this statement plausible, and what residue of the land then existing serves to confirm its truth?" This passage is found in Critias 111a, where Critias erroneously used the condition of the Peloppenesian Peninsula during his day (i.e., "...like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.") as "evidence," or "strong proof," of its former goodness of soil." He then attempted to equate the condition of the whole Peloppenesian Peninsula with that of small islands bare of soil. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that you don't see the flaw in that logic? Are you honestly going to try and say that the absence of good soil during Plato's day can be considered valid "evidence," or "strong proof" (as Critias says), that good soil used to exist???"

Erick, I see that you are out to get Plato at any cost, even by resorting to absurdities. In the above quote you pick on some of the best stuff Plato brings to the table.
As if he had a crystal ball, from somewhere he knows that Greece once used to be a verdant paradise, which he calls the original primitive state. He describes, how the local ecosystem perpetuated itself, how the rich soil could soak up the annual Dios Rains, and then dispense the water evenly all year long. Dense forests were everywhere, thus these processes took place under the cover of the trees. There were numerous springs, streams and rivers.
Plato says that springs were marked by certain sacred objects. The springs had gone, but the objects marking the springs had remained. There is your proof, Erick. Of course, you must first understand how in ecosystems things are tied one to another.
Abundance of water implies lush forests, which imply uneroded soil.
You took this magnificient passage from Plato, and spat venom on it, Erick. By the way, do you deny that Greece was once such a verdant, sylvan paradise? Plato had told the truth, as it was not told again until the 20th century. Do you agree?

The 'primitive' state was succeeded by the 'cultivated' state. Part of the cultivation of land in the now desolate mountains was logging for timber, while clearing the land for cattle pastures. The logging industry was till recently attested to by logs and beams from still intact roof frames big enough to accomodate the biggest buildings.
Without being critical, Plato describes the changes in environment introduced by humans. He puts all the elements of a clear picture in one place, and leaves the logical evaluation to a critical reader. I would call this method 'gentle persuasion'  :)

Conclusion: This passage from Plato is flawless. Its scientific value is extraordinary.

Any ugliness is exclusively in Erick's eye.


[This message has been edited by Jiri Mruzek (edited 07-02-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 46 | From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:20:47 pm
 
Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 07-02-2004 04:27 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and Jiri,
I really appreciate your comments! They add a breath of fresh air to an otherwise stale forum.

Tom



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 813 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:21:29 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 06:38 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far be it from me to add to your troubles, Erick…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, Helios; responding to your postings is absolutely no trouble at all and barely adds any time to my day.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I notice you are having several disagreements with others on this site…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Nothing escapes you, does it. Yeah…uh, isn’t that sort of the whole point of the forum? It’s a place where you can go and discuss your research and/or theories, express your opinions, etc, with other people who will sometimes agree and, yes, sometimes even disagree. Why? Do you feel that every person here should agree on everything?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…but you are wrong on several key points on Plato, and your treatment of the quotes I provided was less than fair and honest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, actually, I wasn’t and it wasn’t, but let’s see if you can make your case, shall we?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of clarity, and so as not to mislead the others who come here who have come her to honestly study of Atlantis, I think I had best work to correct them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew! Thank God you’re here to defend those poor souls from the likes of me. We wouldn’t want them getting a taste of the truth, now, would we? Excuse me for a second, I have to wipe off the sarcasm that’s dripping from my words. I just love it when someone like yourself suddenly feels (or, at least, uses verbiage that expresses) the need to become the next, and newest, self-appointed, savior to those whom you feel might be more weak-minded than yourself – verbiage which, by its very nature, is insulting to the newer members of the forum. Well, let’s see what kind of savior you really are.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

I replied:
"this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a) in reference to the God who represents the Universe (cf. Tim. 92c, 27c), and has absolutely nothing to do with the Atlantis story."
To which you replied:
Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact, introducing the various details of both ancient Athens and Atlantis. The dialogue deals almost exclusively with is invited to read the whole of the Critias and see how much weight either topic is given to either topic by comparison.


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

Helios, if you had ever bothered to crack open the book and read the entire work from cover to cover you would realize that Critias 106a IS the first paragraph of the Critias. The first paragraph (106a found on page 259) does not introduce any details of Athens or Atlantis, in fact, nothing of either city is discussed until paragraph 108e (found on page 265). What 106a-108e addresses is each group member’s individual task or assignment, as agreed to in Timaeus 27a & b. Worse yet, your ignorance of the text is exceeded by your lack of understanding of the material. Furthermore, I spoke truthfully when I said that your reference was non-contextual, and not only non-contextual, but downright incorrect. Let’s examine all of paragraphs 106a & b, in their entireties, and add to them the reference note (cf. Timaeus 92c, 27c) that I provided for you in my previous posting – which you obviously ignored and which has great relevance to the statements made in Critias 106a & b.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias 106a & b
Timaeus: ”How gladly do I now welcome my release, Socrates, from my protracted discourse, even as a traveler who takes his rest after a long journey! And I make my prayer to that God (cf. Tim. 92c, 27c) who has recently been created by our speech (although in reality created of old), that he will grant to us the conversation of all our sayings that have been rightly said, and, if unwittingly we have spoken aught discordantly, that he will impose the fitting penalty. And the correct penalty is to bring into tune him that is out of tune. In order, then, that for the future we may declare the story of the birth of the gods aright, we pray that he will grant to us that medicine which of all medicines is the most perfect and most good, even knowledge; and having made our prayer, we deliver over to Critias, in accordance with our compact (cf. Tim. 27a, b), the task of speaking next in order.”


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

Now, reference the statements made by Timaeus in Critias 106a & b against the statements made by Timaeus in Timaeus 27c:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus 27c
Timaeus: ”Nay, as to that, Socrates, all men who possess even a small share of good sense call upon God always at the outset of every undertaking, be it small or great; we therefore who are purposing to deliver a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or haply is uncreate, must needs invoke Gods and Goddesses (if so be that we are not utterly demented), praying that all we say may be approved by them in the first place, and secondly by ourselves. Grant, then, that we have thus duly invoked the deities; ourselves we must also invoke so as to proceed, that you may most easily learn and I may most clearly expound my views regarding the subject before us.”


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

…and in Timaeus 92c:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus 92c
Timaeus: “And now at length we may say that our discourse concerning the Universe has reached its termination. For this our Cosmos has received the living creatures both mortal and immortal and been thereby fulfilled; it being itself a visible Living Creature embracing the visible creatures, a perceptible God made in the image of the Intelligible, most great and good and fair and perfect in its generation – even this one Heaven sole of its kind.”


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

All passages have been quoted from the Harvard University Press James Loeb Classical Library’s Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9, Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles. Translated by R.G. Bury. Originally published in 1929; my version being the 1989 reprint. ISBN 0-674-99257-1. It is also an extremely reputable, highly respected (as was its translator), and commonly used translation of the text, and it includes the Greek as well as the English translation. Please note, as well, that all further quotes of the text will also be from the above-listed book.

If you would prefer, I could cite Benjamin Jowett’s version, however, the basic content being discussed will be the same (as the source material is the same) even though the verbiage might be different. The point, of course, being that you have taken that passage from the Critias (106a) and attempted to use it as one example of how Plato affirmed the truthfulness of the Atlantis story. In reality, this passage is merely the introduction for the continuation of the discussion, where the Timaeus left off; specifically, that Timaeus, as the best astronomer out of the members of the group, and who had made it his special task to learn about the nature of the Universe, had met his burden of responsibility by speaking first, beginning with the origin of the Cosmos and ending with the generation of mankind, endeavoring all the while and to the best of his power to do justice to the theme Socrates had prescribed. Critias was to then follow, taking over from him mankind, as it were, already created by Timaeus’ speech, while also taking over from Socrates a select number of men superlatively well-trained, and then, in accordance with the word and law of Solon, bring those topics before the group as before a court of judges and make them citizens of the state of Athens, by regarding them as the ancient Athenians revealed to them by the record of the sacred writings (i.e., hieroglyphs). By doing so, Critias was endeavoring to do justice, to the best of his powers, to the theme Socrates had prescribed (i.e. the concept of the primeval Athens as the ideal state, realized in action through a suitable war, and exhibiting all of the qualities of the polity discussed the previous day (cf. Tim. 17a-20c). In Critias 106a, Timaeus was merely invoking the deity’s blessing of his discourse, as required, and as discussed in Timaeus 27c. It has, as I said before, absolutely no bearing as to the “truthfulness” of the Atlantis story, which should now be clear to every member of the forum, when seen in its full referential context, and for which my remark as to you having provided a non-contextual reference was not only true and accurate, but also justified.

I’m sure dhill757 and Brig will probably take great joy and revel in this, my following admission of a mistake. I would point out, however, that this mistake and misunderstanding could have been avoided altogether if you would have cited your textual references. Nevertheless, because I am an honorable man (who admits his mistakes when he realizes them), I must admit that when you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About ancient Athens:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."


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

…and I responded by saying:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Uh, I'm not really sure where you got this, but it found nowhere in my LCL copy of the text. What my version, translated by R.G. Bury says is "How, then, is this statement plausible, and what residue of the land then existing serves to confirm its truth?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was mistaken. The LCL version does actually say it, and the passage that you referred to, which is Critias 110d by the way, does, indeed, read:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias: ”Moreover, what was related about our country was plausible and true, namely, that, in the first place, it had its boundaries at that time marked off by the Isthmus, and on the inland side reaching to the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; and that the boundaries ran down with Oropia on the right, and on the seaward side they shut off the Asopus on the left; and that all other lands were surpassed by ours in goodness of soil, so that it was actually able at that period to support a large host which was exempt from the labors of husbandry.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this error, and misunderstanding, could have been avoided had you bothered to cite your textual references, and I am hopeful that in the future you will begin to do so, for it is much more difficult for meaningful, constructive, argumentative dialog to take place when misunderstandings such as these arise. This error, and misunderstanding, of mine does not, however, negate any of my previous arguments regarding the voracity of the truthfulness of Critias’ statements; for, when examining this aspect of the text, one must also take into account Plato’s definition of “true.” Plato gives us his definition of the word “true,” as Christopher Gill so eloquently pointed out in his October 1977 Classical Philology article The Genre of the Atlantis Story, where he wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
”…Critias’ claim goes well beyond what is really the case, and his story is far from being the factually true account it claims to be: Critias’ very use of the word “true” to describe such an account is implicitly disputed by Timaeus when he begins to speak (29C).”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does Timaeus say in passage 29C? Beginning in Timaeus 29b, and following through to Timaeus 29d, Timaeus says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus: “Again, if these premises be granted, it is wholly necessary that this Cosmos should be a Copy of something. Now in regard to every matter it is most important to begin at the natural beginning. Accordingly, in dealing with a copy and its model, we must affirm that the accounts given will themselves be akin to the diverse objects which they serve to explain; those which deal with what is abiding and firm and discernable by the aid of thought will be abiding and unshakeable; and in so far as it is possible and fitting for statements to be irrefutable and invincible, they must in no wise fall short thereof; whereas the accounts of that which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess likelihood; for as Being is to Becoming, so is Truth to Belief. Wherefore, Socrates, if in our treatment of a great host of matters regarding the Gods and the generation of the Universe we prove unable to give accounts that are always in all respects self-consistent and perfectly exact, be thou not surprised; rather we should be content if we can furnish accounts that are inferior to none in likelihood, remembering that both I who speak and you who judge are but human creatures, so that it becomes us to accept the likely account of these matters and forbear to search beyond it.”
Socrates: “Excellent, Timaeus! We must by all means accept it, as you suggest; and certainly we have most cordially accepted your prelude; so now, we beg of you, proceed straight on with the main theme.”


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

While the main theme being discussed by Timaeus is cosmological in nature, Plato provides us with the framework in which the word “true” is to be construed. He states that as Becoming leads to Being, so, too, does Belief lead to Truth. He further states that the accounts that are copied after the likeness of the Model (for the likeness of the model cf. Tim. 17a-20c), is itself a likeness, and will be analogous thereto (i.e., an analogy of) and possess likelihood. So, here, Plato tells us that in order for an account to be considered irrefutable and invincible, it need only be analogous, likely, and believable. I would have to say that, on these accounts, Plato has succeeded, since, after 2,300 years, people like you still believe that Atlantis was a real place and that the war between the Atlanteans and the ancient Athenians actually occurred. Your belief in its truthfulness does not, however, constitute any real “truth,” as Timaeus has suggested.

Moving on, you quoted the following passage as evidence suggesting that Plato was describing a real place:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Atlantean engineering works:
"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."


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

…to which I responded:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In other words, even Critias (or Plato?)wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then responded by saying:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove your point. I take it that Plato is simply realizing that he is describing a spectacular engineering feat (the ditch around the flat, rectangular plain) as a man of his era might well do. Perhaps in your day, you might use the words, “geewhiz!” or “gosh!” or “golly!” to express yourself about a similar object you found incredible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I respond that your perception that “my interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove (my) point” is exactly that – nothing but your perception. You perceive such because you view the Atlantis story as true and factual, whereas I have taken an objective and dispassionate look at the Atlantis story, as a scientist would, and have therefore been able to see the contradictions contained within. Logic dictates, however, through the very nature of the word incredible (i.e., unbelievable), that we should observe Critias’ own disbelief in that particular description of Atlantis. As the narrator of the story, however, he, nevertheless, felt an obligation to pass-on to his audience that which was related to him, regardless of its factual accuracy – just as the story of Atlantis continues to this day to be transmitted regardless of its historacy. Critias’ own disbelief, by its very nature, cannot therefore in any way be construed as evidence of the “trueness” of the story, hence, my remark regarding your false logic and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity.

Next, you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Timaeus:
Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."


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

To which I replied:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. It’s ridiculous!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which you then responded by saying:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rather pedestrian approach for someone who purports to be a scholar to take, don’t you think? Conveniently, you left out the part this part from the dialogues, if you were even aware of it at all:
from Critias:

“My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced. The tale, which was of great length, began as follows:”

Apparently, your point on “hearsay” was a bit misguided; it was not hearsay, but a story in writing. I'll spend more time on this point since it seems central to your basic logic - a manuscript. Three times, the Atlantis tale saw writing, that we know - the pillars at the Temple of Neith where Solon got the original story, the manuscript in Critias’ possession, and, of course, Plato’s dialogues. But even if there was no manuscript at all, and the story was passed down sheerly from oral tradition, this would not have been uncommon among the ancient people. If memory serves, many of the early books of the Bible were passed down in the same way. Before writing, this was a common practice.


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

There are so many errors contained in your response that I hardly know where to begin. Allow me to begin by stating that I take your remark - about how you view my remark regarding the hearsay in Critias’ statements and how it reminds me of a group of bored, gossipy, 1950’s housewives as “pedestrian” - as a compliment. You have already demonstrated, in your arguments, your low comprehension of the subjects being discussed in the text, your unfamiliarity with the text’s layout, and your ignorance of, and complete absence of, Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning. I suppose I might be offended if the remark had come from someone that was actually justified (and qualified) in making that assessment.

First, please elucidate for us all where in the text Plato ever stated that the story of Atlantis was inscribed in writing on the pillars at the Temple of Neith, in Sais, in the Delta region of Egypt? Solon was told the story there, but it is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the text that the Temple of Neith was where the story was inscribed in Egypt.

Second, regarding the passage discussing Critias’ supposed possession of the “letters” (never, in any place, is it referred to as a manuscript!) that Solon brought back from Egypt, of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own? You did not bring it up, therefore, I felt no need to address it, having limited my responses to arguing only the points that you have attempted to make. Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again? And why did Critias earlier say that he had to recollect the story overnight, and from childhood, but, then, later change his tune and say that he had been in possession of Solon’s letters since childhood? None of Solon’s letters has ever surfaced, and nothing remains of the Temple of Neith, as it was destroyed long ago (not that the story was ever inscribed there); this means that there is still only one (not three) source for the Atlantis story – Plato. Oral tradition is certainly a possibility, but, if you support that argument you cannot then also support the argument of Critias’ supposed possession of Solon’s letters, now can you? So, which is it, Helios, letters or oral tradition, because you can’t have it both ways?

Third, I’m not sure what you consider to be “hearsay,” but Critias saying that he heard a story from his grandfather (Elder Critias), who heard it from his father (Dropides), who heard it from Solon (extended family member), who was told the story by an Egyptian priest in Egypt, is paramount to me saying that my grandfather (Robert) told me a story that his father (Michael) told him, who heard it from an extended family member (i.e., uncle, cousin), who was told the story by an Egyptian priest while on vacation in Egypt, back in 1804. So and so told me, that so and so told them, that so and so said, that someone told them that such and such happened, is hearsay. In this case it is hearsay that was put down in writing, in the form of a Greek dialogue, but it is hearsay, nonetheless. If you would rather read the dictionary’s definition of the word, I can supply it? Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition (Simon & Schuster, 1984), defines hearsay as:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hear•say (hir´sâ´) n. [ < phrase to hear say, parallel to G. hörensagen] something one has heard but does not know to be true; rumor; gossip—adj. based on hearsay
hearsay evidence Law evidence based on something the witness has heard someone else say rather than on what he has himself seen or experienced: it is usually inadmissible as testimony


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

Hmmm. Curious how we find “gossip” included as one of the synonyms of hearsay, isn’t it? It would appear that my analogy of “gossipy women” wasn’t all that “misguided” after all, was it? If you’re shuddering, though, perhaps you should put on a jacket or turn down the air conditioner; you’re probably just cold.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:
Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

Of which, you wrote:

"Just to save time, refer to my previous comment."

Which, I remind you, carries even less weight now.
(See my previous statement.)


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

Since I have already refuted your attempt at refuting my previous statement, that same previous statement of mine carries no less weight than it did before.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again concerning the war:
Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Of which, you so articulately wrote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I believe that quote speaks for itself.


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

You’re right, my comment does speak for itself, since I had already elucidated upon it earlier in the thread. Anyone not understanding that remark can therefore be directed back to my earlier postings in this thread for clarification.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then, my own quote:
Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true.

And then, you wrote:

"Really? Where? Plato never once said it himself. Instead, he created a dialogue between 4 people and has one of those 4 people saying its true. I believe this is what's called "plausible deniability."

No, it isn’t, it’s called a “Greek dialogue.” Perhaps you’ve heard of one, they were common in their day. Where does Plato say that the story is true..? I count six times, I could perhaps I find more less obvious references if I dug even more deeply into it. Critias, being the narrator, will naturally speak of the truth of the tale more than those he cares to enlighten. Indeed, he would also be the one to do most of the talking, as, in fact, he does. If you truly believe Plato is not attesting to its truth, than perhaps both dialogues also simply appeared out of thin air, without the trouble of even having an author at all.


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

Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then, you kindly wrote to me:
"Is that all you can come up with, Helios? Noncontextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator's own statement of incredulity?"

Mind you, I don’t view this as some sort of a competition, I merely wanted to clear up some misconceptions among those who read your material and might become misled by it.


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

The only misconceptions have been your own and I have clearly illustrated that your responses have been limited to non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator’s (i.e., Critias) own statement of incredulity. “Is that all you can come up with?” was a challenge for you to try again and (hopefully) do better.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said that, however, I fully believe that I could disect each of your theories, premises and conclusions with an equal success if they are presented as badly as this one was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough information, from the results of my most recent research, exists in this forum that you should be able to attempt to refute it at its core, and, yet, you haven’t. What, exactly, are you waiting for?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your own logic is quite suspect and your train of thought seems to wander, at times even towards the comic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s good stuff. No, really, you should take that act on the road.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the research I see from you also appears a bit sloppy and incomplete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can that be when, according to people like yourself, Brig, and dhill757, I haven’t revealed enough of my research for you to be able to know what it is about and/or effectively argue against it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shudder to think of you in an academic environment if you bring up things like "parrots" and “bored 1950’s housewives” in order to make your points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Helios, turn down the air conditioner or put on a jacket. I’m sure that Andre will be able to attest as to the verbiage in my article after he is done reading it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mind you, I don’t know much about you, nor why you have engendered such hostility in others…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you don’t, and each person that feels hostility towards me will have to answer that question for their selves.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…but in my opinion you have yet to gain a proper command of the material at hand. It is clear now as well why there is some confusion here about the dialogues if this is how you disseminated this information. I suggest returning to the material and this time a more thorough, intuitive study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find both your opinion and suggestion to be quite humorous, considering the limited understanding of the material you have evidenced in your postings. You would do well to take your own suggestion under advisement, to which I would add that you should study up on Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t simply assume Plato is trying to trick you…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never stated, or suggested, that Plato was trying to trick anybody. Once again, I have merely reported on the results of my most recent research. I don’t have a problem with those results. In fact, I find the results, and the possible ramifications stemming from them, infinitely more interesting than the suggestion that the story could be “true.” Each of you will have to ask yourselves why it is that the result of my most recent research engenders such hostility. I suspect that it is because you don’t like what you’re hearing, as well as, not liking the resultant ramifications of it being found to be true.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often things are just as they appear to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet, also, all too often, they are not.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:21:54 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 07:31 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, I respect you for your effort, but anyone knows the ancients had no written word, only a spoken history.And that spoken history once witten down could have gotten all mixed up in the words  :) I suggest you jump on the bandwagon of a land that went down from earthquakes and some really new discoveries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:22:29 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 07:56 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiri,
You might want to re-read my "little gem," and try reading it a little more carefully this time. I never said that Plato was wrong about Greece once having been more fertile in antiquity than it was during his day; what I said was:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critias erroneously used the condition of the Peloppenesian Peninsula during his day (i.e., "...like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left.") as "evidence," or "strong proof," of its former goodness of soil."
And:

Are you honestly going to try and say that the absence of good soil during Plato's day can be considered valid "evidence," or "strong proof" (as Critias says), that good soil used to exist???"


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

It is not "strong proof" or "evidence" that good soil used to exist. The absence of good soil during Plato's time can be construed as evidence that "erosion due to massive deforestation" might have occured, but it is not "evidence" that it did occur. Evidence for such a theory would have to come in the form of an observable, testable piece of data.

Furthermore, his comparison of the entire Peloppenesian Peninsula with a small island is like comparing apples to oranges. Although the same ravages can occur and be observed in both locations, an island is a much more isolated (and, as a result, usually more fragile) ecosystem. A much wider variety of plant and animal life usually exists at mainland locations that can serve to replace the old, extinct, and defunct ecosystem. Small islands, due to their isolation, take much longer to either be replaced or bounce back - if they ever do at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance of water implies lush forests, which imply uneroded soil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An abundance of water can also imply rich grasslands and swamps & marshes; it does not necessarily imply only lush forests.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the cultivation of land in the now desolate mountains was logging for timber, while clearing the land for cattle pastures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plato clearly stated that the ancient Athenians were free from "husbandry" (i.e., animal husbandry), which really just leaves the upper-class rulers and their subordinate "serf" farmers. Overfarming usually results in the depletion of minerals in the soil, which leads to reduced crop growth and lowered yields. This would have probably resulted in the abandonment of that particular plot of land in favor of another in antiquity, which would have resulted in the replacement of the normally dominant form of plant life (domestic crop) in that plot of land with that of another, less-demanding, form of plant life - probably a grass or weed of some sort. The growth of the new grasses or weeds would have helped to prevent erosion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plato says that springs were marked by certain sacred objects. The springs had gone, but the objects marking the springs had remained. There is your proof, Erick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacred objects marking the site of once-existing sacred springs is evidence to suggest that springs once existed in those locations, but dried up in antiquity - the cause for which must still needs be found. It is not, however, "proof" that Greece once contained an abundance of good soil. A spring can dry up for a myriad of reasons; springs can, over time, lose the energy that once caused the spring to emerge from the earth, due to some outside force acting upon them (e.g., earthquake induced), as in the case of ground water, draining down from higher surrounding ground, being forced to be redirected elsewhere.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You took this magnificient passage from Plato, and spat venom on it, Erick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did no such thing; I merely pointed out that Plato overstated his argument and used what we now know to be false logic and an erroneous comparison to serve as "proof." While it may have been an acceptable argument during his day, we now know that it is not. The only venom being spat here is by you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: This passage from Plato is flawless. Its scientific value is extraordinary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. Its more like an educated guess on Plato's part.

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 07-02-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:22:59 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 08:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docyabut,
Thanks. And thank you for the invite, but I believe I'll walk this time.  ;)

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:23:25 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 08:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Erick,
This has been a facinating thread!

I would like to add something to the stew.

In HOMER IN THE BALTIC, Dr. Felice Vinci's thesis, he suggests that the Mediterranean was peopled by migrations moving south down the riverways and by sea from the far north following the period that included the events of the Iliad and Odyssey when the temperatures were dropping and crops were failing for extended periods.

This was the time of the Achaeans, pre-dating the Mycenaeans which pre-dated the Greeks (Hellenes). They renamed the southern places with the names of places where they were from. Apparently as the Achaeans were overtaken by the Mycenaeans, and they by the Greeks and others, the memory of migration was lost even as the poetry and the gods held.

For instance Peloponesse means Pelope's island. In the Mediterranean it is most definately NOT an island. The original Peloponesse in the Baltic Sea is not only an island, but conforms exactly with Homer's description.

The description of the lush growth of forests, the water ways, streams, rivers, countless springs etc. matches perfectly with the statements you mention, and also match Homer's depiction. (As does the cold weather, "wine dark sea"s" etc. etc.)

I would be glad to put you in touch with him. He will send a copy in English to interested scholars. One of the most facinating reads I've ever had.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:23:45 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-02-2004 09:02 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick the more you write the less you say. Your arrogance is showing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:24:07 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
That's so very deep. BTW, it isn't arrogance, it's confidence.


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots."

"Unleash the power of mediocrity." www. despair.com (http://www. despair.com)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:24:46 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
BTW, the change of my signature is in no way a reflection on you, nor is it directed at anyone in particular. I was looking at my 2004 calender from Despair, Inc. www.despair.com today; I think that particular quote is hilarious (but unfortunately a little true) and I wanted to use it as my signature. You just happened to be the first person I posted in response to after the signature had been changed. I just wanted to clarify that so that there was no misunderstanding. O.K.?


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 07-02-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:25:09 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-02-2004 09:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockessence,
Thank you for the offer; I'll consider it. I have read a little about Dr. Felice Vinci's thesis/theory here in the Forum and it is very interesting, but I am a little "uncomfortable" with some of the suggestions made in the thesis which would require history to be rewritten.

It should be noted, however, that the Thracians were one of the members of the Trojan alliance against the confederation of Mycenaean Greeks.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:25:26 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 07-02-2004 10:02 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plato clearly stated that the ancient Athenians were free from "husbandry" (i.e., animal husbandry.
Erick did you happen to view the history of Stonehedge? How the northern people long for the old days of just hunting the large animals that went extint, and had to turn to seed to survive? They hated it and worship the gods of the old sun and moon circle to a return of that time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8229 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:26:08 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 01:15 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, well if anything else it appears I made you open your copies of the dialogues again, Erick, I do take some satisfaction in that. Bear in mind that the point of this little exercise originally was that you said that Plato makes two references to the truth of the dialogue, whilst I said there were several. It would seem that I have already proven my point since you didn't even bother continuing to address those points in your latest reply, which, I might add read like a red-faced rant worthy of a gentleman like Howard Dean. I can just imagine you as you wrote this, fingers banging frantically on your keyboard, perspiring away...
It's clear you still don't have proper command of the material. This time, however,instead of using ill-timed humor to cover up your inadequacies,your main weapons were sarcasm and insults.

quote:

"Whew! Thank God you’re here to defend those poor souls from the likes of me. We wouldn’t want them getting a taste of the truth, now, would we? Excuse me for a second, I have to wipe off the sarcasm that’s dripping from my words. I just love it when someone like yourself suddenly feels (or, at least, uses verbiage that expresses) the need to become the next, and newest, self-appointed, savior to those whom you feel might be more weak-minded than yourself verbiage which, by its very nature, is insulting to the newer members of the forum. Well, let’s see what kind of savior you really are."

Actually, that is almost exactly how I see my role in this. You have disseminated the information improperly, drawn many false conclusions, taken only what you need from the material to support your, ah, "research," then work frantically to tell everyone that Plato meant this or Plato meant that. Sickening, it's almost like a car salesman trying to pawn off one of his "lemons." Incidentally, the implied insults you say I have levied to the new members are nothing like the very real insults you have levied against myself and Jiri, both new members here. Good thing we both appear to have thick hides else we would perhaps not feel so "welcome."

quote:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

This is the first paragraph of Critias, I don't know why you implied that I said it was not when I clearly wrote:

"Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact, introducing the various details of both ancient Athens and Atlantis."

My original point actually point is actually made twofold by the full quote:

"Timaeus. How thankful I am, Socrates, that I have arrived at last, and, like a weary traveller after a long journey, may be at rest! And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right. Wishing, then, to speak truly in future concerning the generation of the gods, I pray him to give me knowledge, which of all medicines is the most perfect and best."

They finished the discussion of the gods the day before that, they are about to speak of the new day's stories. Again, I invite anyone to read Critias and see in what context this is used. Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis. This quote says nothing in particular of the discussion of the gods at all except for the wish that they impose a just retribution if they spoke falsely. It is you and you alone who draw that inference. Your very real ignorance of the text, and lack of understanding of the material leads to much over-generalizing on your part. From this viewpoint it looks as if you "skimmed" Timaeus and Critias" then bought the Cliff Notes version to borrow your interpretaion from it.

Then again, to be perfectly fair, after comparing your quote with mine, you'll notice they do differ. I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy. I would appreciate it if you worked from the Jowett translation in the future, if only so we could both be speaking the same "language."

About the point concerning ancient Athens:

quote:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

You in turn wrote:

"I’m sure dhill757 and Brig will probably take great joy and revel in this, my following admission of a mistake. I would point out, however, that this mistake and misunderstanding could have been avoided altogether if you would have cited your textual references. Nevertheless, because I am an honorable man (who admits his mistakes when he realizes them),"

Of that, I'll simply accept your apology.

And yet, you also wrote:

"This error, and misunderstanding, of mine does not, however, negate any of my previous arguments regarding the voracity of the truthfulness of Critias’ statements; for, when examining this aspect of the text, one must also take into account Plato’s definition of “true.” Plato gives us his definition of the word “true,” as Christopher Gill so eloquently pointed out in his October 1977 Classical Philology article The Genre of the Atlantis Story"

Personally, I have never thought much of Mr. Gill or many of the commentators on Plato, at least how they are in a position to interpret Timaeus and Critias. An argument could also be made that Plato, being a philosopher, is also a seeker of "truth." It is simply one man's opinion, as it happens, it need not be the correct one. Your willingness to accept Gill or Taylor or any of the others who coment on them frankly speaks little for an independent mind.

Your next quote:

"While the main theme being discussed by Timaeus is cosmological in nature, Plato provides us with the framework in which the word "true” is to be construed. He states that as Becoming leads to Being, so, too, does Belief lead to Truth..."

There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature, but Critias is given very real in it's details, dates and settings. It is as "earthbound" as Timaeus might well be considered "cosmological." Both cannot be dismissed in a similar fashion. Like a lazy policeman eager for his donuts, you accept what is most apparent to you rather than dig for any real evidence.

In addition, it still manages to neatly skirt the issue of what the quote actually said, which was this and which you didn't even bother to newly address:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place. I think you missed your true calling, perhaps, Erick, with your skill at confusing others here, you should have perhaps become a politician.

I trust that I proved my point.

Your next quote:

"I would have to say that, on these accounts, Plato has succeeded, since, after 2,300 years, people like you still believe that Atlantis was a real place and that the war between the Atlanteans and the ancient Athenians actually occurred. Your belief in its truthfulness does not, however, constitute any real “truth,” as Timaeus has suggested. "

I never said that I believed, verbatim, in all the material in the dialogues, merely that Plato intended for us to believe it to be true. "True" may be "false" to you, but to most of us it remains "true."

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

And which you said:

“my interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove (my) point” is exactly that – nothing but your perception. You perceive such because you view the Atlantis story as true and factual, whereas I have taken an objective and dispassionate look at the Atlantis story, as a scientist would, and have therefore been able to see the contradictions contained within. Logic dictates, however, through the very nature of the word incredible (i.e., unbelievable), that we should observe Critias’ own disbelief in that particular description of Atlantis..."

"...hence, my remark regarding your false logic and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity."

This explantation seems to reach even more than the last one in an attempt to prove your point. Just my own opinion here, but I still believe you are reading far more into this than is there. Bear in mind that Plato, Critias, Timaeus or Hermocrates had never beheld Atlantis or any of it's engineering works. And yet, they have a "manuscript" that holds all those details. In what way would you have them describe it..."it was darn big??"

Incidentally, I don't see anything dispassionate or objective about your interpretation, you seem to have an agenda, to use both dialogues to support your point. There is no "code" in Plato, you seem to take what you need from it to support your viewpoint, then disregard the rest.

I'll go onto the next point, but first your kind response to me needs to be addressed:

"You have already demonstrated, in your arguments, your low comprehension of the subjects being discussed in the text, your unfamiliarity with the text’s layout, and your ignorance of, and complete absence of, Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning. I suppose I might be offended if the remark had come from someone that was actually justified (and qualified) in making that assessment."

I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.

Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy. As has been said here, you don't seem to have a great deal of respect for the material. If you don't respect it, how can you possibly comprehend it, let alone find it's subtleties..?

A true "scholar" would have known about the errors, indeed all the passages I cited to you before I even gave them to you. Indeed, you are the one that seems most unfamiliar with text's layout and verbage as evidenced by your groping around for the words, or quibbling about what the words meant, or where exactly in the text they were. A true scholar might have even have compared all the available translations (especially if they are working from one as obscure as yours), to see it there are any inconsistencies among them (and there are). Indeed, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if you were as familiar with the text as you pretend to be.

Again, I have to say, I can just imagine you in an academic setting. As for the science, there is no "Scientific Methodology" that I have seen involved in any of your points, merely a great deal of desperate reaching in order to prove a "new" point and many long-winded opinions. When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.

Regarding the Temple of Neith, from Timaeus:

"Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom Solon heard this veritable tradition.
He replied:-In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith..."

Yet, another error on your part.

Regarding the manuscript, from Critias:

"I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."

Yet another error on your behalf.

Your response to the manuscript:

" of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own? You did not bring it up, therefore, I felt no need to address it, having limited my responses to arguing only the points that you have attempted to make. Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again."

(Sigh)

I've heard this type of rationale for this before. I suppose that you study each book (excuse me, "work of writing") in your possession, without ever forgetting where one is each night you before you go to bed at night. Perhaps, just perhaps, Critias had to look for the book, excuse me, writing..?

quote:

hear•say (hir´sâ´) n. [ < phrase to hear say, parallel to G. hörensagen] something one has heard but does not know to be true; rumor; gossip—adj. based on hearsay

Hmm, first the insults, then the condescension. It would seem that there is a pattern wherein you always resort to bad behavior when you fail to make your case. I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.

quote:

"Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”

This quote speaks to me of just how little your understanding of Greek culture is as a whole. Greek dialogues were considered important works, and Plato used his to teach, to instruct others, hardly mislead them. This, in a sense, is the whole meaning for the existence of the dialogues. Regardless of whether Atlantis exactly existed or not, he would not wish to have an "escape clause" offered to him in his work because he would, by it's very nature, wish for others to embrace it. Don't take my word on that, though, but bring this notion of an "plausible deniability" up to any scholars you know conversant in the works of the Greeks and see how far you get with it.

Your next quote:

"The only misconceptions have been your own and I have clearly illustrated that your responses have been limited to non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator’s (i.e., Critias) own statement of incredulity. “Is that all you can come up with?” was a challenge for you to try again and (hopefully) do better."

Don't be disingenuos here, you were overestimating your own power to persuade, "pumping up" your own faulty conclusions, taking genuine debate lightly (I remember the references to Polly, even if you are backing away from them now), and doing your best to insult me. However, every one of the points I made are still valid ones and, again, your only response to them was your own non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons and, false logic (and a good deal of defensive insults). Your understanding of Plato at this point seems to be a generic one, if even that.

quote:

"Enough information, from the results of my most recent research, exists in this forum that you should be able to attempt to refute it at its core, and, yet, you haven’t. What, exactly, are you waiting for?"

Honestly, being new to this forum, I haven't seen enough of your work to even comment on it. All I know of it from others is that it seems to change all the time and that some of it involves the Sea People. If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.

quote:

"I find both your opinion and suggestion to be quite humorous, considering the limited understanding of the material you have evidenced in your postings. You would do well to take your own suggestion under advisement, to which I would add that you should study up on Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning."

Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults. I think it is clear to everyone who has been reading this just how little command you have of the material at hand. You seem to use Plato as "fast food," you delve in it only to find what you want, disregard the rest while often ignoring it's central truth. Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.

I still suggest a more thorough, intuitive study of Plato. It is clear that much more work needs to be done on your behalf before you happen to get a firm grasp of the dialogues. I trust I have shown, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature. I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem. I also suggest that if you continue your debates here, you try and behave in a more polite and civil manner. The truth is not to be gained by levving insults and accusations. Always remember, honest debate becomes lost when anger clouds the mind.

Warmest Regards,

Helios



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:26:41 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 01:50 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you GUYS!
I picture old Plato leaning over your shoulders as you disect and plot and grind your teeth, pecking madly at the keyboards. Does he shake his head and shrug in wonder, or twinkle and smile?

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-03-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:28:39 pm
 
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 02:58 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A most interesting thread. But dear messenger shooters, think of one thing.
Try to envision Ericks line of thoughts. In the beginning, Erick was determined to solve the mystery of Atlantis. Now, there is always a motive to do something. If Erick would have considered that Atlantis did not exist from the beginning then why bother? Thousands of PhD's think similar, to them it's just another myth. Don't waste any time to it.

No I think that Erick's motives were twofold. He assumed that the Atlantis story could be true and that he would have a fair chance to find itwith his knowlegde and methods. The two elements together would give enough incentive to start the quest.

So based on the result of his work, Erick explained about the Sea peoples with the objective of identifying the location of the sacred city. However in that proces obviously the balance shifted to the philosophical site. What was the real objective of Plato?

And then the proverbal million volt idea probably struck at some point, but alas with some dissapoining consequences because the main motive suddenly ceased to exist.

So what do you do when you know you're chasing a ghost? I know of very many who would stall. Only the true scientific mind is capable of finishing the job like Erick did. In the history of science I don't see this happen very often. That's why paradigm shifts take usually more than 20 years.

Actually what I see here is a typical witch hunt like Gallileo for proposing that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.

Erick it may comfort you that -as you know- Plato already described how it is to have accomplished a major step ahead and then what will happen when trying to convey that message.

We are all prisoners of Plato's cave:
http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if he once more had to compete with those perpetual prisoners in forming judgments about those shadows while his vision was still dim, before his eyes had recovered, and if the time needed for getting accustomed were not at all short, wouldn't he be the source of laughter, and wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW Erick did you send anything?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:29:07 pm
 
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-03-2004 03:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre, sloppy research is sloppy research and by any other name it remains sloppy research. I think Helios has punched enough holes into Ericks theory to seriously weaken or discredit it wholly. For an amateur Erick certainly "thinks" he's a genius. Like I've said before "he's a legend in his own mind".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:29:56 pm
Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 07-03-2004 04:24 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios is the young Greek god of the sun. He is the son of Hyperion and Theia. By the Oceanid Perse, he became the father of Aeëtes, Circe, and Pasiphae. His other two daughters are Phaethusa ("radiant") and Lampetia ("shining")....Each morning at dawn he rises from the ocean in the east and rides in his chariot, pulled by four horses - Pyrois, Eos, Aethon and Phlegon -- through the sky, to descend at night in the west. He sees and knows all, and was called upon by witnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude... you Rock!

That was a very restrainded yet confident response to Mr. Wright. It was obvious your temper almost got the best of you but not quite. You showed how a true gentleman conducts a debate. Impressive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:30:30 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 07:13 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios and/or Erick,
I want to interrupt your debate, to ask about an issue that was raised, but not settled in your recent posts.

Helios, using the Jowett translation, seems to say that Ancient Athens is clearly described. (We covered this in the 900 vs 9000 topic recently.)

Erick, using the Bury translation, seems to say that the geography of Ancient Athens is not decribed by Plato.

Is it true that the Jowett and Bury tranlations DISAGREE about whether Plato described the geographical borders of Ancient Athens?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2461 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:30:55 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 02:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atalante,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, using the Bury translation, seems to say that the geography of Ancient Athens is not decribed by Plato.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said, stated, wrote, suggested, or implied any such thing. Please re-read my postings.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it true that the Jowett and Bury tranlations DISAGREE about whether Plato described the geographical borders of Ancient Athens?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not. Both translations have been performed on the exact same text and therefore cover the exact same material. The only difference between the two are the English words by which each translator chose to express that material.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:31:21 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-04-2004 07:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, Brig and Anteros, thank you for your kind words. I think it important that Plato's words be disseminated in an unbiased fashion, without agenda, insults or emotion.
Atalante, in answer to your inquiry, there are several variations in the text in the two most common translations, those by Jowett and Lee, apparently more still in the version that Erick seems to be using. In my view, those differences are not minor, but quite important. To this I can only say that it night be useful to do a line by line comparison of all the information pertinent to Atlantis and see how they differ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:32:28 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-05-2004 08:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
This is really getting old and it is becoming very apparent to me that no amount of logic will ever reach an individual such as yourself, who clearly does not believe that they could ever be mistaken about anything, and will never admit error even when it is staring them in the face in big, bold, black and white print. Nevertheless, even though you continue to limit your responses and supposed refutations to mere conjecture and opinions, I will make an attempt, once more, to illustrate for you the failing in your logic.

In your most recent posting you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

This is the first paragraph of Critias, I don't know why you implied that I said it was not...


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

Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said it was not.

If you had been paying attention during this, our little exercise in futility, you would have noticed that you originally posted the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.
From Critias:
Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."


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

Please notice (as I did) that you did not provide any section or paragraph reference as to where this passage is found in the Critias.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"this comment of Timaeus' was made (in Critias 106a)..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, therefore, supplied the section and parargraph reference for you (since you seem so loath to do so yourself) and (more importantly) for the other members of the Forum. You then replied by writing:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly. It is the preamble to Critias, the first paragraph, in fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I then responded to that by writing:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios, if you had ever bothered to crack open the book and read the entire work from cover to cover you would realize that Critias 106a IS the first paragraph of the Critias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the bold emphasis of the word "IS" between the phrases “Critias 106a” and “the first paragraph of the Critias”?

So, you then responded yesterday with:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first paragraph of Critias, I don't know why you implied that I said it was not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, you did not paid any attention to what I had written and erroneously assumed that I was somehow arguing with you that it was not the first paragraph of the Critias. Please take a little more time and read through my postings more carefully in the future, so that silly misunderstandings such as this can be avoided.

Now, in regards to what, specifically, Critias 106a discusses, you originally wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true.
From Critias:
Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."


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

So, your original point appears to have been that Critias 106a, the passage just quoted, is a passage that could be quoted to illustrate that Plato intended for the Atlantis story to be taken as true. You are clearly in error on this point, as nothing regarding Atlantis or its factuality is discussed in this passage. In fact, in the first paragraph of the Critias (i.e., 106a) Plato has Timaeus concluding his discussion on the Cosmos, and the transition from the first speaker (Timaeus) to the second speaker (Critias) is getting ready to occur. Timaeus is not doing anything but asking the "Being" (Universe) that he has just revealed (through his words) to grant that his "words endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him." In other words, Timaeus was asking the Being (Universe) to find Timaeus’ words (regarding the Being – Universe) to be true (truly spoken) and acceptable and allow those words to endure. It does not matter that the first paragraph of the Critias (i.e., 106a) is part of the preamble, or introduction, to the Atlantis story - a introduction, I might add, that runs from Critias 106a-108e. Nowhere in sections and paragraphs 106a-108e is the "truth" of the Atlantis story attested to.

So, please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

Moving on, you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 They finished the discussion of the gods the day before that, they are about to speak of the new day's stories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

I’m not sure where you get the impression that another day has passed, but you are, again, in error. The only times that it is mentioned that a day has passed are in Timaeus 17a-20d, where the group’s participants discuss a summary review of the requisites of Socrates’ polity, which he stated in Timaeus 17c as “the kind of constitution which seemed to me (Socrates) likely to be the best, and the character of its citizens”, and again in Timaeus 25e-26c, where Critias relates how he vaguely recalled the story on his way home from the previous day’s discussions, and pondered it over during the night until he had recollected the whole story. He related the story to Timaeus and Critias on their way to that day’s discussion and told Solon that he was ready to relate the whole story, and all its details, to him then (at that moment). Socrates was delighted by that, but told him that they should speak in the appropriate order – that order being Timaeus first (who should begin with the origin of the Cosmos and end with the generation of mankind), then Critias (taking over from Timaeus mankind and also taking over from Socrates a select number of men superlatively trained and make them into citizens of the Athens of that bygone age – i.e., the Atlantis story), then Hermocrates last (speaking of nature versus nurture). Hermocrates, of course, never gets to speak in the dialogues, as the Critias ends with the Atlantis story abruptly being cut off. For the whole remainder of the Timaeus (27c-92c) Plato has Timaeus fulfilling his obligation, hence the name of the book - Timaeus. In the majority of the book Critias (), Plato has Critias fulfilling his speaking obligation, hence the name of the book – Critias. There probably would have been a third book entitled Hermocrates if Plato had ever finished this particular Greek dialogue, but he didn’t and so there isn’t.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have already elaborated upon, the short discussion in Timaeus took place earlier the same day as the longer, more protracted discussion. Please consult the books.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see, Helios; if you can’t attack my arguments, then you just attack the translation I’m working from and label it as somehow “faulty.” Interesting (but transparent) approach.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 About the point concerning ancient Athens:
quote:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

You in turn wrote:

"I’m sure dhill757 and Brig will probably take great joy and revel in this, my following admission of a mistake. I would point out, however, that this mistake and misunderstanding could have been avoided altogether if you would have cited your textual references. Nevertheless, because I am an honorable man (who admits his mistakes when he realizes them),"

Of that, I'll simply accept your apology.

And yet, you also wrote:

"This error, and misunderstanding, of mine does not, however, negate any of my previous arguments regarding the voracity of the truthfulness of Critias’ statements; for, when examining this aspect of the text, one must also take into account Plato’s definition of “true.” Plato gives us his definition of the word “true,” as Christopher Gill so eloquently pointed out in his October 1977 Classical Philology article The Genre of the Atlantis Story"

Personally, I have never thought much of Mr. Gill or many of the commentators on Plato, at least how they are in a position to interpret Timaeus and Critias. An argument could also be made that Plato, being a philosopher, is also a seeker of "truth." It is simply one man's opinion, as it happens, it need not be the correct one. Your willingness to accept Gill or Taylor or any of the others who coment on them frankly speaks little for an independent mind.


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

Hmmm. You conveniently left out:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I was mistaken. The LCL version does actually say it, and the passage that you referred to, which is Critias 110d by the way, does, indeed, read:
quote:

Critias: ”Moreover, what was related about our country was plausible and true, namely, that, in the first place, it had its boundaries at that time marked off by the Isthmus, and on the inland side reaching to the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes; and that the boundaries ran down with Oropia on the right, and on the seaward side they shut off the Asopus on the left; and that all other lands were surpassed by ours in goodness of soil, so that it was actually able at that period to support a large host which was exempt from the labors of husbandry.”


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

Also, the passage Mr. Gill cited (Timaeus 29c) was not his “opinion,” but rather an observation of Plato’s own words, taken directly from the text. Once again, Plato wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timaeus: “Now in regard to every matter it is most important to begin at the natural beginning. Accordingly, in dealing with a copy and its model, we must affirm that the accounts given will themselves be akin to the diverse objects which they serve to explain; those which deal with what is abiding and firm and discernable by the aid of thought will be abiding and unshakeable; and in so far as it is possible and fitting for statements to be irrefutable and invincible, they must in no wise fall short thereof; whereas the accounts of that which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess likelihood; for as Being is to Becoming, so is Truth to Belief.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Plato was able to justify using the word “true” in regards to Atlantis because the story was a likeness of Socrates’ model (the polity discussed the day before), it was analogous to the model of the polity discussed the day before, and it possessed likelihood (i.e., it was believable, plausible). Therefore, because the account was believable, then it could be accorded the label of “true.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Personally, I have never thought much of Mr. Gill or many of the commentators on Plato, at least how they are in a position to interpret Timaeus and Critias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him? What University is Mr. Gill associated with, Helios? The simple fact of the matter is that you’ve probably never even heard of Christopher Gill; your low opinion of him probably comes from the mere fact that he has stated a position contrary to your own.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 An argument could also be made that Plato, being a philosopher, is also a seeker of "truth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, but Philosophy and Truth do not necessarily always go hand-in-hand; Truth can be an idealized abstraction; it is therefore subjective and based, in part, upon perspective. Philosophy, on the other hand, by its very definition (i.e., logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the Universe), is objective and takes a cold, dispassionate look at the aforementioned topics. You should remember that “fact” and “truth” are not always one in the same; that is why scientists search for facts, not truth.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Your willingness to accept Gill or Taylor or any of the others who comment on them frankly speaks little for an independent mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I reached my conclusions, on my own, through six years of research. The fact that the results of that research have caused me to change my mind about the reality of Atlantis should give you pause to ask yourself “why.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding me here? Sweet Moses, smell the roses! The Timaeus contains 64 sections (a full 318 paragraphs) dedicated to nothing but Timaeus’ cosmological treatises! Please, for goodness sakes, do us all a favor and pick up the book and read it!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 but Critias is given very real in it's details, dates and settings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was supposed to be. It was required to meet the burdens of being 1.) a likeness of the model of Socrates’ polity 2.) analogous to Socrates’ model of the polity 3.) likely (i.e. believable, plausible). Do you seriously consider 9,600 BC as a very “real” date? Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very “real” setting? Do you seriously consider a city described as having an 1,800 foot-long tunnel through which its ships could sail as a very “real” detail?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not if they are paying attention to what’s being said while they’re reading it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I trust that I proved my point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I never said that I believed, verbatim, in all the material in the dialogues, merely that Plato intended for us to believe it to be true. "True" may be "false" to you, but to most of us it remains "true."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not provide the definition of “true” in this instance, Plato did. The only thing Plato “intended” for us to believe is that Critias’ details of ancient Athens, the city of Atlantis, and the Athenians’ war with the Atlanteans, were put forth as an analogous, believable, likeness of Socrates’ polity in action.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."
And which you said:
“my interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in an attempt to prove (my) point” is exactly that – nothing but your perception. You perceive such because you view the Atlantis story as true and factual, whereas I have taken an objective and dispassionate look at the Atlantis story, as a scientist would, and have therefore been able to see the contradictions contained within. Logic dictates, however, through the very nature of the word incredible (i.e., unbelievable), that we should observe Critias’ own disbelief in that particular description of Atlantis..."

"...hence, my remark regarding your false logic and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity."


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

Actually, Helios, what I said was “Your perception that ‘(my) interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in order to prove (my) point’ is exactly that – nothing but your perception.” You did not provide any evidence to support your contention that my interpretation was “reaching” in order to prove my point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This explantation seems to reach even more than the last one in an attempt to prove your point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you have failed to provide any evidence to support that statement. Do I need to explain to you how the point/counterpoint process is supposed to work? I’ll tell you what; rather than explain the point/counterpoint process, I’ll just show it to you in action, instead, by demolishing any argument of yours to the contrary.

Critias stated that he found that particular description of Atlantis to be “incredible.” According to The Doubleday Roget’s Thesaurus in Dictionary Form (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977), the word “incredible” is synonymous with the words unbelievable, implausible, improbable, doubtful, questionable, nonsensical, absurd, and far-fetched. This means that we could supplant any one of these words in place of the word “incredible” in the text and it should basically read the same, since all of the synonyms will have basically the same meaning. So, let’s examine that passage with the words synonymous with “incredible” supplanted in its place, shall we?

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were unbelievable, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were implausible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were improbable, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were doubtful, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were questionable, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were nonsensical, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were absurd, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were far-fetched, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Additionally, Plato has Critias saying that a work of such extent “could never have been artificial” (i.e., made by man and not by natural processes).

Furthermore, he ends this passage by saying “Nevertheless I must say what I was told." Words/phrases that are synonymous with “nevertheless” are “nonetheless, however, yet, in spite of, on the other hand, anyway, anyhow, notwithstanding, just the same, still, in any event, and regardless.” Would you also like to see these words supplanted in place of “nevertheless”?

Lastly, we can approach this passage in a couple of ways: 1.) Plato wrote the entire narrative and it is not based upon any actual, real, dialogue, in which case Plato wishes the reader to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis. 2) Plato wrote the entire narrative but it is based upon an actual, real, dialogue, in which case Critias wanted Plato to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis, and Plato wants us, the reader, to also to take notice of the far-fetched nature of that particular description of Atlantis, as expressed by Critias’ own disbelief. Otherwise, why else would he have mentioned it?

Moving on…


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bear in mind that Plato, Critias, Timaeus or Hermocrates had never beheld Atlantis or any of it's engineering works. And yet, they have a "manuscript" that holds all those details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, please illustrate for us all where in either the Timaeus or Critias Plato ever uses the word “manuscript”? In your last posting you wrote the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regarding the manuscript, from Critias:

"I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."
Yet another error on your behalf.

Your response to the manuscript:

" of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own? You did not bring it up, therefore, I felt no need to address it, having limited my responses to arguing only the points that you have attempted to make. Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again."

(Sigh)

I've heard this type of rationale for this before. I suppose that you study each book (excuse me, "work of writing") in your possession, without ever forgetting where one is each night you before you go to bed at night. Perhaps, just perhaps, Critias had to look for the book, excuse me, writing..?


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

Yes, I’m familiar with the passage, Helios, however, what I don’t see in evidence is the word “manuscript. Please find it for me and highlight it in bold in your next response. Writings can take many different forms, only one form of which is a manuscript. The simple fact is that Plato used the generic word “writings” indicating that he didn’t know what sort of writing it was. As evidenced from the passage just quoted above, however, it can be deduced that what was brought back from Egypt by Solon was the Egyptian forms of the names (i.e., hieroglyphic), the meanings of those names, and the Greek translation of those meanings. That is the only form of writing actually in evidence in Plato’s dialogues. There was no error on my part, and you have failed to make your case for there having been a “manuscript.”

No, I don’t study every book in my possession each night, but I do know where they all are – on my bookshelf where they belong. Books and writings were more valuable in Plato’s time than they are now, mainly because of their scarcity and the time and difficulty involved in reproducing them. Are we seriously supposed to believe that Critias simply forgot where he put it and had to go home and look for it? And if that is the case, then why did he have to call upon Mnemosyne (Memory) to remember the story and why did it take him a whole night to recall it? It is not rationale I’m offering up, it is reason. You are the only one making rationalizations.

Second, you’re right, not Plato, Socrates, Critias, Timaeus, or Hermocrates had ever laid eyes on Alantis or any of its engineering works; this would mean that all of the descriptions are based upon Critias’ hearsay testimony. This is also a point that I brought up in my last posting and, again, you have chosen to ignore it. Please address it now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Incidentally, I don't see anything dispassionate or objective about your interpretation, you seem to have an agenda, to use both dialogues to support your point. There is no "code" in Plato, you seem to take what you need from it to support your viewpoint, then disregard the rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

In regards to you not seeing anything dispassionate or objective about my interpretation, this does not surprise me, considering what you apparently consider to be “objective” and “dispassionate.” Let’s examine your “dispassionate” and “objective” responses to my postings, shall we?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”
“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”


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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

hear•say (hir´sâ´) n. [ < phrase to hear say, parallel to G. hörensagen] something one has heard but does not know to be true; rumor; gossip—adj. based on hearsay
Hmm, first the insults, then the condescension. It would seem that there is a pattern wherein you always resort to bad behavior when you fail to make your case.


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

Just where, exactly, Helios, is the insult involved in quoting a dictionary? Or the condescension? Or the bad behavior? The definition of “hearsay” was posted so that everyone could see that “gossip” is a term synonymous with “hearsay”; in turn, this would allow them to see that my earlier observation about the bored, gossipy housewives was a valid observation – an observation to which, I might add, you have not returned a logical, reasonable, counter-argument.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

"Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”
This quote speaks to me of just how little your understanding of Greek culture is as a whole. Greek dialogues were considered important works, and Plato used his to teach, to instruct others, hardly mislead them. This, in a sense, is the whole meaning for the existence of the dialogues. Regardless of whether Atlantis exactly existed or not, he would not wish to have an "escape clause" offered to him in his work because he would, by it's very nature, wish for others to embrace it. Don't take my word on that, though, but bring this notion of an "plausible deniability" up to any scholars you know conversant in the works of the Greeks and see how far you get with it.


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

You just don’t ever seem to pay attention to what is being said. I never stated that Plato wished to have an “escape clause” or mislead anybody. If you will please examine that particular paragraph of mine you will notice the use of the following language:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Plato’s “plausible deniability” comes from his ability to deny that he ever meant it to be taken seriously, by being able to point to the fact that it is a Greek dialogue. On the other hand, should he choose to, he could also stand behind it as “truth” until such time as he is forced into some inescapable corner, at which point he can merely say “Aw, come on, its just a Greek dialogue.” He can stand behind it, but he can also deny its reality in a believable and logical manner, hence, it has “plausible deniability.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My remark about “plausible deniability” does not presume anything. It does not presume that he would deny it and it does not presume that he wouldn’t deny it; it merely observes that the nature of the dialogue is such that it has plausible deniability. Let’s not forget that this work was not published during Plato’s lifetime; it was published posthumously and not really received all that well. Debates and arguments erupted regarding the truthfulness of the Atlantis story shortly after Plato’s death and they have continued to this day. Later Greek scholars, such as Strabo, made comments such as “if Plato invented their destruction, then he is nothing more than a maker of Achaean walls.” Plato’s own students argued against the story being true. This may be the reason that he put it aside and never finished it; then again, it might not. Only Plato will ever know the reason he didn’t finish it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Your next quote:
"The only misconceptions have been your own and I have clearly illustrated that your responses have been limited to non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons, false logic, hearsay, and the narrator’s (i.e., Critias) own statement of incredulity. “Is that all you can come up with?” was a challenge for you to try again and (hopefully) do better."
Don't be disingenuos here, you were overestimating your own power to persuade, "pumping up" your own faulty conclusions, taking genuine debate lightly (I remember the references to Polly, even if you are backing away from them now), and doing your best to insult me. However, every one of the points I made are still valid ones and, again, your only response to them was your own non-contextual references, erroneous comparisons and, false logic (and a good deal of defensive insults). Your understanding of Plato at this point seems to be a generic one, if even that.


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

Why should I back away from the “Polly want a cracker” references? I’m not ashamed of them and the point being made in regards to those reference was that, in the dialogues, Socrates merely repeated what he had heard “like a parrot imitates a human.” Socrates can no more attest to the truthfulness of the story than you can.

I have, repeatedly, illustrated to the members of this Forum how your responses have been limited to non-contextual references (e.g., you cited Critias 106a as a reference to the “truthfulness” of the Atlantis story when, in fact, it is a request to the Being (Universe) that Timaeus’ words be found by the Being (Universe) to be true and acceptable), hearsay (e.g., you cited the hearsay testimony of Critias as evidence of the truthfulness of the Atlantis story, when hearsay, by its very nature, cannot be taken as evidence of anything other than gossip), false logic (both of the previous examples would fall into this category), and the narrator’s own statement of incredulity (I believe I covered this rather lengthily earlier in this posting). In regards to erroneous comparisons, I suppose I should have used the term erroneous conclusions, since I have shown how a great many of your conclusions have been erroneous and based in false logic.

There was no attempt to insult you in those statements, Helios; they were merely observations, nothing more, and it’s not as if I made any of those statements without providing arguments to support them. You keep making constant reference to these supposed insults. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

If your statements have been refuted through arguments based in logic and reason, then how could they still be considered valid?

Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Enough information, from the results of my most recent research, exists in this forum that you should be able to attempt to refute it at its core, and, yet, you haven’t. What, exactly, are you waiting for?"

Honestly, being new to this forum, I haven't seen enough of your work to even comment on it. All I know of it from others is that it seems to change all the time and that some of it involves the Sea People. If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.


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

Helios, you can’t make the statement that “you can refute my research at its core” and then when invited to do so, simply disincline to look at it. Again, either “put up or shut up.”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 quote:

"I find both your opinion and suggestion to be quite humorous, considering the limited understanding of the material you have evidenced in your postings. You would do well to take your own suggestion under advisement, to which I would add that you should study up on Scientific Methodology and logical reasoning."
Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults. I think it is clear to everyone who has been reading this just how little command you have of the material at hand. You seem to use Plato as "fast food," you delve in it only to find what you want, disregard the rest while often ignoring it's central truth. Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.


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

Exactly what point was offered up for debate, Helios? My response was written in response to your remark, which was the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 …but in my opinion you have yet to gain a proper command of the material at hand. It is clear now as well why there is some confusion here about the dialogues if this is how you disseminated this information. I suggest returning to the material and this time a more thorough, intuitive study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing there but opinions and suggestions, therefore, there is nothing to debate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I still suggest a more thorough, intuitive study of Plato. It is clear that much more work needs to be done on your behalf before you happen to get a firm grasp of the dialogues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I find this very humorous.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I trust I have shown, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not one iota.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume you are trying to blame my copy of the text again here, but who can tell since you didn’t finish a single thought.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I also suggest that if you continue your debates here, you try and behave in a more polite and civil manner. The truth is not to be gained by levving insults and accusations. Always remember, honest debate becomes lost when anger clouds the mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allow me to refresh you:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Let’s examine your “dispassionate” and “objective” responses to my postings, shall we?
“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”

“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”


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

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:33:16 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-05-2004 10:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
You really like the word "boorish," don't you?  ;)


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:34:57 pm
Aatlae
Member
Member # 1974

Rate Member   posted 07-06-2004 09:18 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK boys and girls,
It should be pointed out here that I am an impartial observer to this strain, never having posted, and certainly not wishing to commit myself to one side or another of this heated debate.
What I will say is this: Erick, what you seem to fail to understand is that you've come onto a forum where people fundamentally believe in Atlantis - so dismissing their theories and beliefs in such a sarcastic way is only going to wind them up.

As for you being 'not arrogant' - I'd look up the word if I were you. Because you seem to have confused "overbearing, presumptuous & aggresively assertive" with confidence.

It's a shame with all you've learnt about the past you couldn't learn some people skills as well.

Ben Harker
"The world is full of stories, but Erick's a rude prick"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 29 | From: Plymouth, UK | Registered: May 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:35:38 pm
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 11:11 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on Friends.
When a proper response is failing, the usual line of attack against new and fresh ideas is the "ad hominem" which you have been so abundant to our honest messenger of the bad news.

OK there may be a fine delicate line between Atlantis finders and Atlantis mystery solvers, but there should not be so much fuss about.

Let's try and revert to sciencific methods again. Erick has proposed a new hypothesis about Atlantis based on a new look at certain linguistic technicalities. Now, what do you do with a hypothesis, you verify the evidence and when there is more than one explanation, then there are simply more explanations. The number of explanations counts however, as well as the number of refuting evidence.

That takes presentation and discussion, giving exactly that was Plato was intending as I understand it, elaborating the relationship between believing and truth at extensio.

No need to throw mud, you all. Understand and enjoy the philosophy behind it.

BTW, the best way to debunk Erick, is finding Atlantis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:36:11 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 04:20 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aatlae,
I've been posting to this forum for nearly two years now. I used to be one of those people that fundamentally believed in Atlantis. I haven't dismissed their theories and beliefs in a sarcastic way. I have limited myself to answering their responses and pointing out the use of false logic and erroneous conclusions, etc., when I have encountered them. Sarcasm was used in response to sarcasm.

If arrogance is my worst failing, then I'll live with that.

By the way, LOVE your signature! There's nothing like a little free advertising, eh?  ;)

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:36:35 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

  posted 07-06-2004 04:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick you used to accuse Maria and Georgeo of being long winded and rude. Go back and read your own ramblings. At lest Georgeos made sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10428 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:37:12 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 05:28 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
Rude, yes; I think we all got a taste of that. Long? I don't recall ever complaining about the length of her postings, although I do recall others complaining about it. Mostly, I recall others complaining about her bad English.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go back and read your own ramblings. At lest Georgeos made sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong, Brig? Are you having difficulty following along?  ;)

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:38:03 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-06-2004 09:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
I thought I made it clear to you with your last posting actually, where your deficiencies lie in terms of the material, in which areas you needed to improve, and gave you most honest suggestions about how to do so. Still, you persist with this dull, faulty logic. This exercise is getting most tiresome, I feel something like a school teacher trying to explain Plato to a child. I've noticed, even if others are still discovering it, that the more you write, the less you say. Once again, If you really have spent two years at this forum, I can well imagine they were years that you spent frequently spouting your long-winded opinions, while barely paying any attention to what the others were saying at all.

Concerning your point about what was or was not the 'first' paragraph:

"Please take a little more time and read through my postings more carefully in the future, so that silly misunderstandings such as this can be avoided."

Had you not even brought such a silly topic up in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need for any misunderstanding, imagined or not. I see that you spent almost a quarter of your post to this one single point, so I'll save the readers here some time and simply take it that it's important to you. Another simple apology on your apart to me that you had committed yet another error would have sufficed but I see that this was something that the monstrous ego could not manage on this occasion.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to deal with this first point again save that I seem to be dealing with an especially slow or stubborn mind:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should unintentionally I have said anything be set right..."

Spoken "truly" and acceptably by him, just "retribution" if he "errs." I honestly don't know how a man of his time could have done a better job of making a point of this that he believes to portray the material as true. Perhaps the point was not made to your satisfaction, but I doubt that it would pass by many others. Hmm, perhaps you should investigate time travel, if only so that you could go back in time to offer your services as an editor to Plato, Erick.

quote:

"Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?"

Consult the first half of the Critias, dullard, and discover it for yourself, it should be plain to everyone but you.

my quote

Incidentally, the discussion of the day before you'll remember, was not simply about the gods but also, albeit briefly, of the war between Athens and Atlantis.

your quote:

"As I have already elaborated upon, the short discussion in Timaeus took place earlier the same day as the longer, more protracted discussion. Please consult the books."

I suggest that you consult the books. As usual, overgeneralizing to suit your purposes.

my quote:

"I think part of your problem with the interpretation is that you are working from a faulty copy."

You are. I've counted at least three inconsistencies from your version as opposed to the more accepted versions by Lee or Jowett. If you can't find passages, this pivotal to your understanding of the story, isn't it time you got a different copy? I'm merely trying to help you, Erick.

your quote:

"the accounts of that which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess likelihood; for as Being is to Becoming, so is Truth to Belief...”

"So, Plato was able to justify using the word “true” in regards to Atlantis because the story was a likeness of Socrates’ model (the polity discussed the day before)

I'll let this quote speak for itself as only a man grasping at straws to begin with would make this type of comment. I cannot believe what a long-winded rationale this had to become for you to make something even vaguely resembling a "point."

Concerning Mr. Gill:

"Really? Just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him?"

The material I have read of Mr. Gill's is in association with his opinion on Atlantis. Like your opinion, it is flawed. Mr. Gill is no more qualified to speak on Atlantis as, it appears, are you.

your quote:

"The simple fact of the matter is that you’ve probably never even heard of Christopher Gill; your low opinion of him probably comes from the mere fact that he has stated a position contrary to your own."

Again, the tactics of the boor make themself known. You have things confused, Erick, my low opinion of you happens to be evolving from the fact that you have a position contrary to my own, backed up by ill logic, faulty conclusions, sloppy research, and rude behavior. At the moment, I am unconcerned with Mr. Gill's opinion.

my quote:

There is certainly some truth in Timaeus being cosmological in nature…

Your next quote:

"Are you kidding me here? Sweet Moses, smell the roses! The Timaeus contains 64 sections (a full 318 paragraphs) dedicated to nothing but Timaeus’ cosmological treatises! Please, for goodness sakes, do us all a favor and pick up the book and read it!"

Be saracastic all you wish here, you petty little man. The fact remains of what I have said before: you have only a generic understanding of Plato at best, commentators like Gill have "told" you what to think of it, then you take only what you need to from it to support your crude research, then have the nerve to present it as "truth."

Anyone reading our little discourse here is invited to read the dialogues for themselves, and then see who speaks with truth.

Then again, I forget, you're working from the "Bury" dialogues...

your quote:

"Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very “real” setting? "

This is the only interesting point I have seen you raise in the whole of your postings. As it happens, one of the reasons I entered this forum was to investigate something like this. I would not deem to investigate it with you, though, who's mind seemed to be closed to such possibilities even before you entered the forum. I see the words coming from you and yet I have heard them all before, there is very little original thinking in you, Erick. You're like a puppet, you open a standared college textbook and it tells you just what to say.

my quote about your response:

"Nothing to do with the "cosmological nature of Timaeus", of course, by the time anyone had finished reading your response, they would have conveniently forgotten that there was a quote in the first place."

Your response:

"Not if they are paying attention to what’s being said while they’re reading it."

Skirted the first time, skirted a second time just as clumsily. Yes, so far you've made your arguments so clearly, ignore what you can't explain, use long-winded, covulted verbiage to try and "attack" the others.

I feel like I am being flogged with a wet sock here. Most irritating, hardly harmful. Aren't there any more potent weapons at your command..?

In the interest of brevity, and so as not to bore the others reading this, I'll list your next replies in more quick succession:

"No, not at all."

About the Atlantean engineering works and my comment that you were reaching a bit to support your "conclusions":

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

"Actually, Helios, what I said was “Your perception that ‘(my) interpretation of this reaches quite a bit in order to prove (my) point’ is exactly that – nothing but your perception.” You did not provide any evidence to support your contention that my interpretation was “reaching” in order to prove my point."

Why should I have had to? What evidence did you supply to support such an inane conclusion? I ask anyone to read the quote again. Only yourself, or a friend of yours would subscribe to such a disconnected hypothesis.

Then, of course, we have your silly little list:

"unbelievable, implausible, improbable, etc."

Don't condescend to speak to me in that manner, I suspect you thought you were being "clever." Actually, that speaks more of your stupidity, rudeness and lack of any social graces. Mere desperate "reaching" to make a point. If you have to resort to such mindless, impolite ways in order to prove your failed "points", I suggest that you should go back to your drawing board. I suppose that if Plato used the word "wonderful" as opposed to "incredible" we would then have a list now of all the many meanings of the word, "wonderful," correct..? I gave that passage of yours all the attention that it deserved, am astonished that we are still discussing it now, as I am even this debate we are having, as it is plain, with each new thing that you say, just how little knowledge you have of this material.

Concerning your boorish behavior, please don't tell me that you wish for me to now cut and paste all the many derisions, insults, and snide comments you have made during the course of this discussion, not merely to myself but to others. Any remarks I made in reply are simply responses to you in a like, and, I think more civil. The tone of these messages was created by you, I remind you.

When you found someone who you found was better acquainted with the material, who was able to prove you wrong repeatedly on several key points, you became defensive,responded, in turn, as a child might, with your bad behavior. As I said before, perhaps you are used to behaving in this forum, but I shudder to think of you in an academic setting (should that situation even occur).

Regarding the theory of "plausible deniability" as you put it, and an "escape clause," again, I suggest you bring this theory up to your professors as a possible motive for the Greeks in their culture.

Your next quotes:

"Helios, you can’t make the statement that “you can refute my research at its core” and then when invited to do so, simply disincline to look at it. Again, either “put up or shut up.”

I believe I am seeing some of your "research" now and giving you my opinion on it. You're such a vain, foolish man (vain with little reason, I might add) that I doubt that you would take criticism, the truth, if it was staring you in the face. You seem more interested in being "right" then in discovering the "truth." A most poor presentation of a man.

My next quote:

"I would suggest that you get other copies of the dialogues as it is also plain that that, not to mention your lack of understanding on several key points on the copies you do have, is a great part of the problem.

your next quote:

" I assume you are trying to blame my copy of the text again here, but who can tell since you didn’t finish a single thought."

I take it when you say that I didn't "finish a single thought" that I didn't drone on in incomprehensible paragraphs, complete with dictionary explanations, saracasm and long-winded opinions intending to confuse others by saying that Plato meant "this" or Plato meant "that." Opinions, that's all you have ever given to support your theories. And yours seem to be getting ever more shrill, the last resort of a desperate man, a man, struggling now, even to convince himself he is correct.

Your quoting of my prior comments of you needs to be repeated, if only so that you can listen to them again and perhaps gain a better comprehension of them this time:

“I suppose anyone who disagrees with you would be the subject to this same boorish treatment.”

“Your own lack of understanding of Plato amounts to that of a Neandertal trying to grope with astronomy.”

“When you can't prove a point to your satisfaction, you seem to get frustrated like a child and resort to insults: the natural first reaction of a lazy mind.” (Note: I would love to see you try to provide evidence of this!)
Of this, I suggest you see your reactions to any of your responses to each of my points in your last three posts.

“I can just see you, Erick, little arms flailing away, ever so desperate to make your points.”

“If it happens to be of the same low quality you have evidenced here, presented with the same boorish "take it or leave it quality" I don't think I would be inclined to look at it now either. Sloppy, incomplete research by a most rude man.”

“Again, your method makes itself clear here. When you can't debate intelligently, your resort to boorish insults.”

“Should I ever attend a class on Scientific Methodology, I certainly hope I don't attend the same one you have, else I become the same flawed, boorish creation.”

I stand behind each of these original points, for it is plain that they still apply. You, sir, are a poor scientist, a crude debator, and, by all appearances, a most sloppy researcher. I still trust I have shown, again, even to you now, that your work is quite sloppy, it's conclusions, most suspect and premature, the work of poorly educated opinions. Again, I suggest a return to the original material for it is plain that you have little or no grasp ot it. This time, try to find the essential truth of it, rather than only delving into it to take what you need to from it. I can't help you if you won't help yourself.

As for the quote you leave as your signature:

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

I would venture, that, by all appearances and from your poor performance here, you are fast in danger of falling into that latter category. Please become more acquainted with the material by the time we speak again.

Warmest greetings,
Helios


[This message has been edited by Helios (edited 07-06-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:39:19 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-07-2004 04:52 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
you wrote
"your quote:
"Do you seriously consider a city with a Bronze Age description existing in a Neolithic time period to be a very real setting? "

This is the only interesting point I have seen you raise in the whole of your postings. As it happens, one of the reasons I entered this forum was to investigate something like this. "

I have run across something that might prove interesting in this regard, .

"The widespread use of metals was a feature of this era of the early industrial and trading cities. You have already found a bronze culture in Turkestan dating before 9000 B.C., and the Andites early learned to work in iron, gold, and copper, as well. But conditions were very different away from the more advanced centers of civilization. There were no distinct periods, such as the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages; all three existed at the same time in different localities."
http://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper81.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper81.html&line=81#mfs



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:39:40 pm
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-07-2004 06:40 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if I proposed that Erick has indeed found Atlantis? In the mind of Plato.
Looking at all these post, I can only say that Ericks reseach seems to be several orders of magnitude higher than the usual search for the location of said city.

With the Critias and Timaeus, it seems that Plato has deliberately created a very ingenious puzzle for people to find themselves. Not Atlantis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:40:12 pm
Psycho

Member
Member # 2035

  posted 07-07-2004 08:05 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre, just a personal observation here, maybe your friendship with Erick is making you want to to defend him a little more than you should..? I don't see any witch-hunt going on here, just an honest disagreement, and Erick himself said about the forum:
"It’s a place where you can go and discuss your research and/or theories, express your opinions, etc, with other people who will sometimes agree and, yes, sometimes even disagree. Why? Do you feel that every person here should agree on everything?"

By the way, I hope you guys all realize the irony that this is all being discussed under the topic title:

"Worst Theories/books on Atlantis."

Gee, thanks for sticking to the topic people! Or is Erick's theory really all that bad..?

------------------
"What a revoltin' development this is."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1269 | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:40:48 pm
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-07-2004 01:27 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most certainly Psycho, whatever you say.  :)
Oh Erick, perhaps a good title could be:

"Tales of Children".

From a bad translation:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:41:32 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho,
I think that the title of the thread is perfect for Helios' theory that Plato wishes us all to accept the story as the God's honest truth. My theory is not getting discussed, so I am not offended by the title of the thread.

It is certainly possible that Andre's friendship with me might be unduly influencing his opinion, thereby causing him to defend me a little more vigorously than he should...but is it probable that he would allow such to do so? Also, you must remember, Andre is also a science-minded individual and he has read my article and therefore seen all of the evidence.

While it is true that the forum is a place where people can disagree, there also comes a point when a person must bow to another person's argument in the face of overwhelming evidence and an inability to overcome their opposition's arguments. Helios refuses to do so, and yet, he also refuses to provide any substantive arguments and/or evidence to support his position. Helios could have long ago just said "I cannot prove it right now, but I respectfully disagree with you on those issues. He could have taken any number of routes other than the path he has chosen. He has made the accusations, suppositions, and contentions, and now he must defend them.

The results of my research are "unpopular" here in this forum; I can understand that; but that does not give Helios, or any other individual to resort to name-calling, attacks of a personal nature, and unsubstantiated claims or statements. Helios is just as answerable as the rest of us for his/her actions. Quite frankly, I am surprised (and a little saddened) that a Moderator has not yet warned Helios about his/her behavior and reminded him/her of the Forum's rules. If the Moderators and Administrator are not more attentive to that sort of thing in the future, they will find that yet another valued member of this Forum will have been lost to them, and that I will have gone the way of Andre, NileQueen, DaffyDuck, and Georgeos. Once gone, I will disavow any association with this Forum and its members.

Warm Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:42:41 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Constructive argumentation (i.e., debate) can be a fun and useful tool when approached in a responsible manner and with the suitable demeanor. Your demeanor, however, has been neither responsible nor suitable.

To date, you have referred to me as:

1. a boor; boorish
2. a dullard
3. a puppet
4. a most poor presentation of a man
5. petty
6. little
7. sarcastic
8. snide
9. condescending
10. a most rude man
11. a poor scientist
12. a crude debater
13. a most sloppy researcher
14. poorly educated
15. derisive
16. long-winded
17. vain (with little reason to be so)
18. foolish
19. mindless
20. impolite
21. desperate
22. shrill
23. defensive
24. childlike
25. flawed
26. disingenuous
27. someone who exhibits bad behavior
28. someone with an especially slow or stubborn mind
29. someone with a monstrous ego
30. someone who over-generalizes
31. someone who grasps at straws
32. someone who lacks social graces
33. someone who “reaches” to make his points
34. someone who is only interested in being right
35. someone who drones on in incomprehensible paragraphs
36. someone who is intending to confuse others
37. someone who only gives opinions to support his theories
38. someone who is struggling to convince himself he is correct
39. someone that responds as a child might
40. someone with a lazy mind
41. someone who is fast in danger of being categorized as an “inquisitive idiot”
42. someone whom you can imagine ranting red-faced, like Howard Dean
43. someone who uses ill-timed humor to cover up their inadequacies
44. someone who is like a lazy policeman, eager for his donuts, accepting what is most apparent rather than dig for evidence
45. someone who is skilled at confusing others, like a politician
46. someone with an agenda
47. someone who takes what he needs to support his viewpoints and discards the rest
48. someone whose understanding of Plato is Neanderthal-like
49. a pseudo scholar
50. someone who takes genuine debate lightly
51. someone incapable of intelligent debate
52. someone who uses Plato like “fast food”

So, is that your idea of disseminating Plato’s words in an unbiased fashion, without agenda, insults, or emotion?

In my last posting, I asked you to do the following:

1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.

You chose to not quote any of my postings and to not illustrate in any way, shape, or form, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias. Instead, you chose to try and blame me for bringing the topic up in the first place and suggested that I owed you another apology.

2. So, please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

You chose to not illustrate where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed and you chose to not quote from the Critias. Instead, you chose to call me a “dullard.”

4. To inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s have you ever read and what about it caused to have such a low opinion of him?

You chose to not answer the question directly. Instead, you chose to inform us all as to just what material of Mr. Gill’s you have read by stating “The material I have read of Mr. Gill's is in association with his opinion on Atlantis.” Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked you to inform us all as to what article(s) you have read and in what journal it/they appeared?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

You chose to not respond to this question in any way, shape, or form.

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my interpretation, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

You chose to not provide evidence to support your contention that my interpretation “reaches” in order to prove my point. Instead, you chose to respond by asking “Why should I have to?” Furthermore, you asked “What evidence did you supply to support such (a)…conclusion?” The evidence for such a conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

I provided three pieces of evidence for my argument from just that one sentence and you have failed to argue a single one of them. Instead, you perceived it as condescension and asked “I suppose that if Plato used the word "wonderful" as opposed to "incredible" we would then have a list now of all the many meanings of the word, "wonderful," correct..?” Well, Helios, Plato didn’t use the word “wonderful” to describe that particular detail in the description of Atlantis, therefore, your question is irrelevant. You have clearly demonstrated that either you do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process, or you do not have any arguments sufficient to overcome my arguments.

7. Illustrate for us all where, in either the Timaeus or Critias, Plato ever uses the word “manuscript”?

You chose to not illustrate this for us all. I asked you to please find the word “manuscript,” in either the Timaeus or Critias, and highlight it in bold for us in your posting. Your failure to do so can therefore be construed as evidence of your inability to locate any appearance of the word “manuscript” in either book.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

You chose to not “put up” or “shut up,” and you chose to not provide any evidence of insults. Instead, your response was to try and blame me for the tone of your messages and to ask ”…please don't tell me that you wish for me to now cut and paste all the many derisions, insults, and snide comments you have made during the course of this discussion, not merely to myself but to others?” Yes, Helios, that’s exactly what I want you to do.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

You chose to not illustrate your point by providing evidence to support your contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.

You chose to not respond to this in any way, shape, or form.

From your responses, or lack thereof, it can be reasonably deduced that you are either unable or unwilling to support your accusations, suppositions, and contentions with any sort of evidence. This is, therefore, evidence to further support my contention(s) that:

1. You have a low comprehension level of the material at hand
2. You do not understand the point/counterpoint argumentative process
3. You do not understand, nor employ, Scientific Methodology
4. Your responses were non-contextual
5. Your arguments were based on false logic and hearsay
6. Your arguments contained erroneous comparisons

Although you might be insulted by them, my aforementioned contentions cannot be construed as “insults” when they are supported by strong arguments and substantive evidence; until such time as you can overcome the arguments and evidence, my contentions will stand.

By the way, anyone who knows me can tell you that it is just in my nature to be sarcastic; it is just part of the joy that is me.  ;)

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 200


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:43:13 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 05:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
Oh, yes, I forgot one other thing; you stated in your last posting that you found "at least three inconsistencies from (my) version as opposed to the more accepted versions by Lee or Jowett."

Unfortunately, you failed to cite those inconsistencies; therefore, based upon your failure and/or unwillingness to cite those inconsistencies, it can be deduced that, in fact, there are no inconsistencies between R.G. Bury's translation and those of Lee and/or Jowett. Otherwise, if three inconsistencies actually did exist, you certainly would have taken the time and effort to cite them.

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:43:51 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-09-2004 06:25 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric,
I think Bob Sarmast had 50 of 52 clues matched for Plato's Atlantis with his Cyprus location.
I now see that Helios has 52 out of 52 clues to your behavior in regards to Plato. How many is he correct onÀ Maybe there is really more to you and Atlantis than meets the eye.

Co-incidence?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:44:09 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 07:26 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pox on all your houses!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:45:11 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-09-2004 11:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,
You'll forgive me if I don't answer each of your points word by word this time. Whilst during the course of reading them, I realized that they were simply the same old arguments, that you weren't repetant of anything and simply fell asleep... I got up later, made myself a cup of coffee, tried honestly to give you a more fair hearing, to little success, I'm afraid, for I fell asleep again...

You'll be assured to know that you are right in one of your statements, at least, Plato does not say "manuscript", but neither does he say "letters" as you say either, but rather "writing." (Jowett translation) The word "manuscript" is my mere description of the writing, for, in my own language, what would such a volume of collected material be called if not "manuscript." "Letters" incidentally is even more of a poorly chosen word, for to most, it implies correspondence, such as a "letter" written from me to you...This should be apparent to you of yet another weakness involved in the particular translation you are working from. Had I known that you would have taken not only Plato's words but my own so literally, I would have taken more care in the choosing of my own descriptions. I make this point simply because, as one who fancies himself an expert in "eptimology", I can see how important this is to you.

I remind you, however, that the whole "manuscript" tangent was simply a debating tactic on your behalf in order to divert attention escape reponsibility for disproving the point at hand, the exact verbiage had very little to do with what we were discussing. Then again, that seems to be a tactic used frequently by you. I've noticed you often tend to draw on points that haven't much pertinence to the material we are discussing, try to broaden the discourse into a much broader discussion, at times, even try to move it wholly away from the original topic. As I said in the past, with your skill at endeavoring to confuse others, I think you might be better suited as a politician. Ah, the tactics of the desperate...

Since I am growing weary of this little exercise, and for the sake of the others who may be reading this, I will sum up the conclusions of our little discourse, both yours and mine, and simply leave them for others to decide. During the debate, I believe I gathered enough of your opinions and theories, at least enough that are pertinent, that make a reasonable amount of sense, to also make the case on your behalf. (Don't worry, I'll do my best to do justice to you.)

My own position is really quite simple, I believe when Plato says "true," he means "true."

The debate started like this, that you said that there were only two mentions during the dialogues of their truthfulness, while I said there were several, I found six, to be perfectly accurate. I believe at the start of this little exercise, you said something, about your attack on the dialogues, something along the lines of “let’s see what type of savior you are.” I remind you, though, that since Plato uses the word “true” in the better part of the mentions, it was incumbent on you to prove to us all that when he said “true”, he really meant “false.”

your quote:

Helios,

"As far as I know, there is only two references to the story being true, and that is in Timaeus 20d-e,"

my quote:

"Actually, Erick, there are several references in both dialogues to the story being true. "

From this point on, I'll remind you, whatever hostility that arose through our discourse was something of your making, and I simply responded in kind. Of course, just like the dialogues themselves, simply believe what you wish. It is the others here who may or may not have become confused by your rather self-serving interpretation that I care to enlighten, your own confusion seems to be quite apparent.

From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."

I simply presented this point as the narrators saying that they spoke truth the say before and intended, under the threat of divine retribution, that they would speak also speak truth this day as well.

You defended this point to saying that the speakers were confining their speech about the gods. In addition, you also raised the diversion of the first paragraph.

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

Of course, on this I said that "true" meant "true."

While you, in turn, after first stating that the line nowhere appeared in your copy, then repented and apologized, also cast doubt that the land of Athens was ever anything other than it appears now, again something Plato does not say. Later, switching tactics, of course, much discussion on the "cosmological" nature of Timaeus, then, of course, further sarcasm to underline your point.

About the Atlantean engineering works:

"The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Ah, here we had all the varied definitions of the word "incredible." I said that you were reading too much into the line, you opened a dictionary and proceeded to read even more. Ah, the joys, and triumphs of eptimology.

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Again, I said that "true" was "true."

And, of course, hear was where we had, initially, at least, the definition of the word "hearsay" as your key arguing point. Friends, remember the discussion of the "bored, 1950's housewives..?" I believe here also arose the discussion of "plausible deniability" as Erick later reached for a more respectable metaphor in order to prove his "point." Presumably, a built-in method for Plato to "bob and weave" and escape the story's credibility, should it, perhaps, be received poorly, I imagine.

I trust I paid that point the proper consideration, Erick?

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This was one of the most obvious references by Socrates concerning the story's truth, which, I believed best attested to it's truth.

Erick's response?

quote:

"To save time, see my previous point. "

Of that, I'll simply rest my case.

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Erick viewed this as merely an "echo" of the earlier point and called on his pet parrots to assist him. He chose various other ways to explain himself, but I believe that this one sums up his position most perectly:

quote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I trust, if we explored this again, we would be treated to further explanations of the word "hearsay."

I, in turn, wrote:

"Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction."

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."

So when I say that you are a crude debator and a sloppy researcher, I am, perhaps, being kind, Erick. I submit that you are the one with a truly low comprehension of the material, for, had you really been as aware of the material as you pretend to be, you would have been aware of each of these quotes before I even told them to you. Indeed, as I have also told you, I wouldn't have even had to inform you of them at all. The long and short of it is that only someone who happens to be desperate to support his own perculiar idea on Atlantis would resort to such vague and short-sighted arguments to plead his case, in terms of this material. You would have done well to embrace these points, rather than to try so earnestly to escape them with points like "false logic", "erroneous comparisons", and, of course, my own personal favorite, "hearsay," all of which, I would submit, apply far more ably to your arguments than mine.

I am not coming up with any new line of logic here, I am simply applying a logic that has been in force since as long as mankind knew the value of writing which is that "true" means "true." It is only to those with your particular grasp of Scientific Methodology wherein "true" really means "false. " A most faulty, even obtuse, line of defense if I have ever heard one.

Indeed there are several variations of the text between all three translations, but since they are too numerous and that would be a much longer exercise, I will not illustrate the examples. If you are as interested in the material as you claim to be, you will feel free to investigate themselves. Be assured, they are there, and they are not minor ones either.

Then again, I have always maintained that you need to return to the dialogues in order to have a better grasp of the material at hand. You have resisted this suggestion, it seems, at your own peril and because of your own faulty pride. To further resist it would be even more at your own peril, for it will put you at a further disadvantage when it comes to true comprehension of the points at hand, not the ones that you simply wish to be there, but aren't.

"True" means "true", it seems to be the one word in the dialogue who's definition you have yet to quote. Fast food - take what you need to from the material to support your own faulty conclusions whilst ignoring it's central "truth."

The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.

I do not see this so much as a victory for me, but rather Plato, who has been vindicated once again, after yet another ill-informed amateur has tried to "take him down."

Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.

Perhaps somewhere tonight, the ghosts of those who once dwelled in Atlantis are also celebrating.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Not to be rude, but I believe we have just seen a perfect example.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:46:07 pm
 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 12:57 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
"As one who fancies himself an expert in eptimology," you'll be interested to know that R.G. Bury's translation also uses the word "writings." As a self-proclaimed expert in eptimology, however, you should have long ago realized that the Greek word that was used by Plato was "grammata(atos)," a word for which the complete Greek-English Lexicon has "letters" listed 7 times and "books, treatices" (i.e. codices) listed only once. "Letters" does not imply a correspondence, as you suggest, but rather, written characters, as the Greek-English Lexicon clearly demonstrates and explains. You seem to keep forgetting that I have had my "nose in the books" for nearly 6 years now, and that I have performed a metaphrastic translation of the entire story. Did you really think that I did not know the meaning of the word "grammata(atos)?"

Incidentally, other definitions of the word also include, but are not limited to:

1. the alphabet (i.e., letters)
2. written characters (i.e., letters)
3. inscription
4. epitaph
5. lines of a drawing
6. picture
7. notes (in music - expressed as letters)
8. figures (in a picture)
9. to read
10. school (where you learn your letters - 11. the alphabet)
12. scribe
13. etymologically
14. articulate sounds (i.e., letters)
15. diagram (mathematical)
16. divisions (said of dicasts)
17. roster (said of guards)
18. quarters (of a town)
19. accent
20. 1/24 ounce, scruple (small weight or measure)
21. set of written characters (i.e., letters)
22. piece of writing (hence, letter)
23. papers or documents
24. records
25. title-deeds
26. contract or estimate
27. account (of loans)
28. bond
29. note of hand
30. a man's writings
31. Imperial rescripts (i.e., = hieroglyphics)
32. article (of a treaty)
33. laws or rules


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com


[This message has been edited by Erick Wright (edited 07-11-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:47:16 pm
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 07-11-2004 04:32 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick I went over your "list" of descriptions made by Helios. Frankly I do not see any that don't fit. There are only three theories of Atlantis that I see no merit in; (Indonesia, Mars, and Erick Wrights) so I guess I'm rather broad minded on the subject. You act as if your loss to this forum would be a great tragedy. May I point out that this is, again, a perfect example of your huge ego and arrogance. Your totally closed minded, tunnel vision is what turns people off. Its always the same with you; Atlantis was the sea people, you were right everyone else was wrong. Then it was in Turkey, you were right everyone else was wrong. Now it never existed, you are right everyone else is wrong. Do you see a pattern here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10082 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:48:04 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 05:17 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
I see that, once again, when you cannot argue your case sufficiently you resort to assigning blame...but never to yourself, of course.

I also see that, once again, you are accusing me of employing tactics designed to "divert attention and escape responsibility." Why is it, do you suppose, that you can never seem to just limit yourself to the arguments that would support your contentions and accusations? Why is it, do you suppose, that you always have to resort to insults, accusations, and attacks of a personal nature? Could it possibly be that you know your arguments are weak and that the text does not support your position?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate started like this, that you said that there were only two mentions during the dialogues of their truthfulness, while I said there were several, I found six, to be perfectly accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, only two of them have any pertinence in regards to the Atlantis story, since 2 or 3 of them were Socrates merely repeating what he had just heard (i.e., that it was a true story; Socrates hadn't even heard the story yet at the point his remarks were made about it being true), and 1 of them was Timaeus praying that his words be found truly spoken and acceptable to the Being (Universe) - about whom he had just finished speaking. Furthermore, Critias could not attest to the truth of the story because he was not there when it happened. Again, Critias' statements regarding the "truth" of the story is nothing more than the "hearsay" testimony of a man 5 times removed from the event.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe at the start of this little exercise, you said something, about your attack on the dialogues, something along the lines of “let’s see what type of savior you are.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!

Yes, I said "let's see what kind of saviour you are" because you insinuated that you had to "save" everyone from the likes of me. Apparently, you're not a very good "saviour" because, so far, you've failed to effectively argue a single point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remind you, though, that since Plato uses the word “true” in the better part of the mentions, it was incumbent on you to prove to us all that when he said “true”, he really meant “false.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has never been incumbent upon me to prove that when Plato wrote "true" he actually meant "false," because that has never been my position. My position has always been that Plato laid the framework for the manner in which "true" is to be construed in relation to the likeness of a Model, which is 1.) that it must be analogous to the Model and 2.) possess likelihood - and this position is supported by the text and by the 4 members of the dialogue having agreed to such a condition. You have yet to prove otherwise.

You have based your position on "belief" and "a feeling" and you want me to abandon all logic and reason and come "feel the text" and "believe" in its "truthfulness" right along with you, but that is not how the argumentative process works. You must first establish your case with such ironclad logic and reason that I could never hope to argue otherwise, and Helios, you have quite simply failed to do so.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this point on, I'll remind you, whatever hostility that arose through our discourse was something of your making, and I simply responded in kind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assigning blame to anyone but yourself again, I see.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the others here who may or may not have become confused by your rather self-serving interpretation that I care to enlighten, your own confusion seems to be quite apparent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again with the saviour nonsense, eh? Your brand of "enlightenment" is rather like a burnt-out lightbulb in a dark room. Oops! There you go again. Now you have to argue how my confusion is supposedly "apparent."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Critias:
Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."

I simply presented this point as the narrators saying that they spoke truth the say before and intended, under the threat of divine retribution, that they would speak also speak truth this day as well.

You defended this point to saying that the speakers were confining their speech about the gods. In addition, you also raised the diversion of the first paragraph.


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

Yet again with the blame (anyone but yourself, of course). First of all, once again, Timaeus is the only person speaking in Critias 106a, and he is ending his discussion. Critias will speak in just a few, short, paragraphs later, and he will speak for the remainder of the book. So, I ask you again, how could Timaeus be swearing to tell the truth in his discussions that day, when his discussion was coming to an end and he would not be speaking at all any more in the whole rest of the Critias? Your argument makes no sense in the hard, cold, light of reason, and in the face of the evidence.

And, once again, this was still the same day; another day had not passed, otherwise, Plato would have noted so in the Critias, just as he did in the Timaeus.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About ancient Athens:
"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

Of course, on this I said that "true" meant "true."

While you, in turn, after first stating that the line nowhere appeared in your copy, then repented and apologized, also cast doubt that the land of Athens was ever anything other than it appears now, again something Plato does not say. Later, switching tactics, of course, much discussion on the "cosmological" nature of Timaeus, then, of course, further sarcasm to underline your point.


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

Who's trying to confuse who here? I suggest you re-read my postings. You are mixing my postings to you and my posting to Jiri together. There was, indeed, much discussion as to the Cosmological treatices discussed in the Timaeus, but not in response to the quote about the Egyptian priests and what they told Solon about ancient Athens! You really are a piece of work! Do you know that?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, here we had all the varied definitions of the word "incredible." I said that you were reading too much into the line, you opened a dictionary and proceeded to read even more. Ah, the joys, and triumphs of eptimology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh..where, exactly, was your triumph, Helios?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Timaeus:
Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Again, I said that "true" was "true."

And, of course, hear was where we had, initially, at least, the definition of the word "hearsay" as your key arguing point. Friends, remember the discussion of the "bored, 1950's housewives..?" I believe here also arose the discussion of "plausible deniability" as Erick later reached for a more respectable metaphor in order to prove his "point." Presumably, a built-in method for Plato to "bob and weave" and escape the story's credibility, should it, perhaps, be received poorly, I imagine.

I trust I paid that point the proper consideration, Erick?


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

Not at all, and I would never, in a million years, trust you to pay proper consideration to any of my points. As usual, you were either not paying attention to what you were reading, or you failed to understand the point, which was that the fact that he could deny it, or he could embrace it is what gives it plausible deniability. Whether or not Plato would or would not do anything is never addressed or surmised; the fact that it has plausible deniability stands irrespective of what Plato would or would not do.

Once again, Critias could not attest to the fact that Solon attested to the truth of the story; he was merely going off of what his grandfather told him and who, in turn, went off of what Dropides told him. It is hearsay, plain and simple, any way you cut it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:
Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This was one of the most obvious references by Socrates concerning the story's truth, which, I believed best attested to it's truth.

Erick's response?

quote:

"To save time, see my previous point. "

Of that, I'll simply rest my case.


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

You never really ever respond to anything, do you? Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again concerning the war:
Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Erick viewed this as merely an "echo" of the earlier point and called on his pet parrots to assist him. He chose various other ways to explain himself, but I believe that this one sums up his position most perectly:

quote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I trust, if we explored this again, we would be treated to further explanations of the word "hearsay."


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

Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, in turn, wrote:
"Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction."

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."


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

Once again, Plato never said it; he didn't even include himself as one of the members of the group; he left the fifth member up to the imagination of the reader.

The Bible contains the word "true" and "truth" and "verily" countless times; should we take everything that is written in it as "true" also?

All of your arguments completely ignore what the whole point of the dialogue was; to put forth a suitable model of Socrates' ideal polity in action, in a suitable war. In order for the war to be suitable, the opponent must, too, be suitable - hence, the Atlanteans.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when I say that you are a crude debator and a sloppy researcher, I am, perhaps, being kind, Erick. I submit that you are the one with a truly low comprehension of the material, for, had you really been as aware of the material as you pretend to be, you would have been aware of each of these quotes before I even told them to you. Indeed, as I have also told you, I wouldn't have even had to inform you of them at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was perfectly aware of them, Helios, I just knew that they weren't applicable because they were either non-contextual or hearsay. You presume a great deal too much for such a "newbie." By the way, you still have not proven, nor shown, in any way shape or form, how I am a "crude debator, sloppy researcher, or have a low comprehension of the material." When are you planning on doing that? Are you ever?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The long and short of it is that only someone who happens to be desperate to support his own perculiar idea on Atlantis would resort to such vague and short-sighted arguments to plead his case, in terms of this material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh oh, there you go again! Now you have to argue how my arguments have been "vague" and/or "short-sighted," and in what manner I have displayed any "desperation." A person would think that you would learn to quit sticking your foot in your mouth, but apparently not.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not coming up with any new line of logic here, I am simply applying a logic that has been in force since as long as mankind knew the value of writing which is that "true" means "true."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, you believe everything that you read. Its a good thing that Plato didn't write that the Atlanteans had big, long, pointy teeth and hair all over the bodies, because you probably would have thought that was "true" also! Herodotus wrote that there was men in Libya "that had eyes in the middle of their chests" - do you believe that was "true" also? He used the word "verily" (i.e., in truth)?

Give it a rest, Helios. You know just as well as I do that just because someone says or writes that something is "true," doesn't necessarily make it "true." It isn't a faulty, obtuse, line of defense, its just reality.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed there are several variations of the text between all three translations, but since they are too numerous and that would be a much longer exercise, I will not illustrate the examples. If you are as interested in the material as you claim to be, you will feel free to investigate themselves. Be assured, they are there, and they are not minor ones either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.K., so, first there are three, and then there are so many it would take too long to list them? I didn't ask for all of them, I only asked for three. Please list those three. Remember, you have stated several times that my text is somehow faulty, so now you must defend that position by supplying the evidence to support it. I already know that there aren't any major differences or variations between the different versions; you are the one who has said that there is, therefore it is now "incumbent" upon you to prove that there are variations between the different translations.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then again, I have always maintained that you need to return to the dialogues in order to have a better grasp of the material at hand. You have resisted this suggestion, it seems, at your own peril and because of your own faulty pride. To further resist it would be even more at your own peril, for it will put you at a further disadvantage when it comes to true comprehension of the points at hand, not the ones that you simply wish to be there, but aren't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?

You have yet to prove a single one of your contentions and that is why I find your suggestions so laughable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What theory? We haven't discussed any "theory" of mine.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not see this so much as a victory for me, but rather Plato, who has been vindicated once again, after yet another ill-informed amateur has tried to "take him down."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victory? (chuckle) You have to actually win a point in order to claim "victory." Heck, the only point you even responded to was the one about "manuscript," and on that point you admitted defeat! Victory? Not quite.

Uh, how, exactly, have I tried to "take Plato down?"

"Ill-informed amateur?" Well, I guess you'll have to defend this one too, now.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your conclusion presumes to know what Plato believed and what he wished for others to believe, fixates on the appearance of the word "true," but disregards all of Plato's words in the dialogues as to how "true" is to be construed.[/quote]

My conclusion rests squarely on all of Plato's words and pays close attention to what they actually say as to how "true" is to be construed. It presumes nothing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."
Not to be rude, but I believe we have just seen a perfect example.


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

"Not to be rude?" You don't consider that to be rude?

Now, please focus yourself on the 10 requests I made in my previous posting, and make an honest attempt to address them. To refresh your memory, those were:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.
2. Please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

4. To inform us all as to just what articles of Mr. Gill’s you have ever read, what journal(s) it/they appeared in, and what about it/them caused you to have such a low opinion of him?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my conclusion, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

The evidence for my conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

Please respond to the evidence listed above.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.


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

Regards,

Erick


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:48:52 pm
Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 06:01 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow... what an incredible waste of bytes.
------------------
‘Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people.’

BALONEY DETECTOR
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:49:30 pm
 
Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 07-11-2004 06:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your balony detector must have rang off the table with Ericks post. The wordier he gets the less he says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10082 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:49:59 pm
 
Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 06:32 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
 ;D ;D ;D ;D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:50:26 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 07:43 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anteros,
You might want to try actually reading the information contained in the web sites that you post links to. You should pay special attention to:

Propaganda - Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering, Scare Tactics
- Ridicule

Logical Fallacies - Circular Reasoning
- Non-Sequitur
- Shifting the Burden of Proof

Smokescreen - Ad Hominem
- Side-stepping
- Bluffing
- Subjectivity

Helios' postings have shown evidence of all of those.

You, Anteros, however, have not written anything at all in regards to this discusion. You have sat by on the sidelines, allowed Helios to fight the good fight for you, and thrown in a quick quip every now and again. At least Helios has the strength of his convictions and the guts to stand up for what he believes. You have stood for nothing. Mind you, that doesn't get Helios "off the hook" - he still has to support his positions, statements, assertions, contentions, etc., with evidence.


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:50:58 pm
Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 07:49 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I hadn't read the site at least twice, learning an aweful lot about how people like you operate, I would not have included it in my signature. I thought by doing that I could share the wealth with others.
Helios is doing a great job making you look like a ranting buffoon without my help, or anyone else's for that matter.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:51:28 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 08:06 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion? An argument of any sort? All you ever seem to post are insults and negative opinions.

You disagree with me...I get it. Now how about posting some sort of argument as to how I am supposedly wrong?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You act as if your loss to this forum would be a great tragedy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The loss of any forum member, for any reason other than disinterest, is a loss.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I point out that this is, again, a perfect example of your huge ego and arrogance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that I don't believe that a forum member should be able to get away with calling another forum member names is an example of my huge ego and arrogance? Or the fact that I said that I would leave the forum, like so many others have, if nothing is done about it, and you don't think my leaving would be a loss to the forum, is an example of my ego and arrogance? Did it ever occur to you that everybody might not share your same opinion of me?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your totally closed minded, tunnel vision is what turns people off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you presuming to speak for everyone with that remark, or just expressing your own opinion?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its always the same with you; Atlantis was the sea people, you were right everyone else was wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was right, and I have given you as much of the evidence of it as I can without violating my publication rights agreement. You are free to purchase a copy of the article when it is published, though.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then it was in Turkey, you were right everyone else was wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please feel free to quote any one of my postings, at any time, and illustrate where and when I have ever said that I was right about Turkey and everybody else was wrong.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it never existed, you are right everyone else is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one is one-in-the-same with "Atlantis was the Sea Peoples."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see a pattern here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but only that you are consistently angry, hateful, and bitter.


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:52:02 pm
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 07-11-2004 08:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anteros,
Please feel free to elaborate, at any time, as to how Helios has succeeded in making me look like a "ranting buffoon."

Hmmmm, "ranting buffoon," I guess that would fall under "Propaganda: Ridicule."

Perhaps you should re-read the site a third time?


------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:52:55 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 01:30 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig, Anteros, thank you for the kind words. Not to worry, I'll handle this, gentlemen...
Erick,

I suggest you use your vast knowledge of eptimology, not to mention your Webster's dictionary, to look up the words "true", "truly" and, of course, "fact." I note, with interest, that those seem to be of the few words of Plato's who's meanings you do not supply. My position has remained consistent in this throughout, I merely say that when Plato says "true", he means "true." It is only to those with particularly obtuse minds wherein "true" actually means "false." Any other issues besides that, your "list", for instance, is a mere sidebar meant to divert attention from the central "truth" of the dialogue. I need no diversionary tactics on my side, for "truth", it seems, is on my side.

Ah, Erick, wih each passage you write, your explanation vary a little more to suit the situation, your tone seems a little more desperate. I think that you are finally beginning to see the flaws in some of your arguments, though you are, as yet, loathe to admit them to any of us. I say this, not meaning to demean you, did I detect a tear in your voice behind some of your comments of today..?

First let me address this little kernel of wisdom of yours concering my use of the word "manuscript":

"As one who fancies himself an expert in eptimology," you'll be interested to know that R.G. Bury's translation also uses the word "writings."

And yet, on your quote of 07/02, you also said:

"Second, regarding the passage discussing Critias’ supposed possession of the “letters” (never, in any place, is it referred to as a manuscript!) that Solon brought back from Egypt, of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own?"

Why? Why to find the truth, Erick, then again, I keep forgetting, you seem more interested in being "right" than in finding the truth. The quote continues:

"Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again? And why did Critias earlier say that he had to recollect the story overnight, and from childhood, but, then, later change his tune and say that he had been in possession of Solon’s letters since childhood? None of Solon’s letters has ever surfaced, and nothing remains of the Temple of Neith, as it was destroyed long ago (not that the story was ever inscribed there); this means that there is still only one (not three) source for the Atlantis story – Plato. Oral tradition is certainly a possibility, but, if you support that argument you cannot then also support the argument of Critias’ supposed possession of Solon’s letters, now can you?"

In all six uses by you of the word "letters" even though you claim that the Bury translation calls them "writings." Next, you'll tell me that you were paraphrasizing. Of course, my use of the word "manuscript" (two times) was simple paraphrasing, too. I was intending to let your usage of the word "slide" yet you made such a grand deal out of my own usage of "manuscript" that I must now say:

Yet another error on your part. Even if you now claim, as it seems you were that there is little difference between "writings" and "letters"I think we can all see you true "scientific methodology" at work here: spend voluminous amounts of time upon petty details that have little to do with the gist of the material in order to deflect attention from logic on your part when it is at it's weakest and most suspect.

Concerning this little pearl of today:

"My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!"

Ah yes, Erick, far be it from you to have ever been insulting to anyone here, ever the victim.

Concering your attack on the dialogues, I refer you to your now infamous comments of 06/30:

" There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!

I trust that that was attack enough for both of us, though, of course now you'll no doubt simply say you were being "facetious." Again, I ask you, how can you ever hope to comprehend the dialogues if you don't even respect them?

"Propaganda
- Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering,
Scare Tactics
- Ridicule


Logical Fallacies - Circular Reasoning
- Non-Sequitur
- Shifting the Burden of Proof

Smokescreen - Ad Hominem
- Side-stepping
- Bluffing
- Subjectivity"

Honestly, this proves what I have been saying a thousandfold,for they each apply far more ably to your arguments than mine. My stated position has not changed, never wavered. I simply imply that "truth" means "truth". Why would I need to employ any such tactics when "truth" is on my side? "Truth" it seems only means "false" if one happens to be desperate to prove a vain new theory upon Atlantis. I invite anyone to read, even re-read the discussion, only yourself or one who happens to be a good friend of yours could even remotely see the logic in such ill-formed, mal-nourished arguments as yours. A shame upon you to even try to deflect these items upon me when each happened to be a method of your employ at almost every posting.

quote:

"I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?"

I find that statement most comical considering the lack of knowledge you have displayed upon the topic. It is quite plain to myself and anyone just how much work needs to be done on your behalf. Again, I suggest a return to the dialogues, yet this time, perhaps try a version other than the "Bury" version. The versions by either Jowett or Lee first come to mind. Jowett's, perhaps first for it does seem to be the most enlightened of them all. At any rate, please do not return to the "writings" of Mr. Gill, as has been known to also confuse, rather than enlighten, those who happen to embark upon an honest quest for Plato.

Your quote regarding Brig:

"Yes, but only that you are consistently angry, hateful, and bitter."

Again, it would seem that anyone who agrees with you is subject to this same kind of treatment.

Regarding Anteros:

"Anteros, Please feel free to elaborate, at any time, as to how Helios has succeeded in making me look like a "ranting buffoon."

"Hmmmm, "ranting buffoon," I guess that would fall under "Propaganda: Ridicule."

"Perhaps you should re-read the site a third time?

Please don't wish that upon them. Actually, it is you that might do well to re-read your comments of the last few postings, Erick, for it is plain that they are becoming increasingly more bitter and hostile. I realize that you now see long-cherished theories of yours currently unravelling before your eyes, but that is the way of things, especially if they are faulty to begin with. Bring them only to friends or family if you wish consistent encouragement. Now, of course, we'll all be in for another long-winded diatribe of yours in response. Please do not confuse the quantity of your material wih the quality, however. I think that others are "onto" you when I hear comments like "the more you write, the less you say." The sad truth of the matter, for you, that is, is that, to me, your "writings" seem very much long on opinions even "hearsay", yet they sadly bereft of any actual "proof" to support your, at times, ill-formed conclusions.

Again, sadly, Plato himself is also no longer here to validate any new theories, all we have is his writings, one of which was:

"And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."

As I said, the dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have indeed taken quite a beating.

Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.

As I have said, I don't see this so much as my own victory, Erick, but one on behalf of Plato, the Academy, perhaps even those who once may have dwelt in Atlantis. I am hoping that, if they really existed, their ghosts are at rest this night.

[This message has been edited by Helios (edited 07-12-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:53:32 pm
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 03:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helios,
You may be very close to point of Erick. Indeed Plato's characters are confirming with regular intervals that it's all true.

So how do I see it all?

Erick has discovered a very delicate plot in the writings, based on the homograph idea. He cannot elaborate on that presently. But this would proof beyond any doubt that the Atlantis story is virtually identical to the sea people story. Just assume that this is true for the moment.

If there has been a real Atlantis city that was destroyed, it would also have been known in the other sources concerning the sea people. As it is not, the conclusion of the non existance of Atlantis is logical.

The question remains who made that delicate plot. Was it Solon, Critias or Plato? If it was not Plato and Plato acted merely as a reporter then he also could be convinced of the truth of the story. Solon was a remarkable man and a poet and it may be very likely that he invented the modification of the sea people story.

But then again Plato seems to have been rather intelligent too and he never played objective reporter before or after. So he may have had an objective when he had his characters stating the story to be true.

What would have been said in the missing part of the Critias?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:53:59 pm
Essan

Member
Member # 1224

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 03:50 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought: does anyone believe that Plato wrote verbatim what was said in a conversion between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timeaus, and Critias?
Because, if it wasn't a verbatim report then it must have been, in part, made up. And if part of it was made up, who can say which part (or parts)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 394 | From: Evesham, Worcs, England | Registered: Oct 2002   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:54:20 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 05:33 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essan,
The dialog takes place in parallel to some festival in honor of "the goddess" (either Athena or Demeter).
Presumably that festival could be the Eleusinian mysteries, which were intended to be kept secret.

Therefore, perhaps Plato was introducing Solon's egyptian story (Atlantis) as an acceptable way to comment on some of the "secrets".

In regard to linking truth to belief: it seems that the Athenians were expected to "believe" their Eleusinian mysteries, and their Panathenaia festivals.

So Plato/Solon could have been trying to cite external (Egyptian) info regarding the "truth", or the basis, behind the Eleusinian war, and the Eleusinian mysteries.

Alternately, the story could have been seeking a basis for the great festival of Panathenia, and the conflict between Athena and Poseidon for control of Athens.


[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 07-12-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2432 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:54:51 pm
Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 09:54 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case for the Sea People being the sole basis for the Atlantis story is a weak one at best, built on circumstantial evidence and superficial similarities. It is not a new one, nor hardly original. Simply the fact that the Sea People have no legend of a cicular city does not in itself prove that there was no Atlantis. That is a faulty line of logic that implies that the Sea People were the sole basis for the Atlantis myth, and, as I have said, that case is circumstantial at best.
As I have seen already noted by others in previous threads I shall now paraphrase here:

(1.) Atlantis operated from a base clearly in the Atlantic, the Sea People were clearly from Asia Minor.

(2.) The limits to the Atlantean empire stretched from the Atlantic to the western Mediterranean, to the boundaries of Egypt and Tyrhennia, while the Sea People, if not controlled, at least made war with the eastern Mediterranean.

(3) In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

I'll grant you there are some superficial similarities, but, as also has also no doubt been noted in earlier, both Santorini and Minoan Crete, even ancient Troy, for that matter, also share those certain similarities with Atlantis.

As for the story being told "verbatim," well, of course not, the descriptions of both Atlantis and ancient Athens are no doubt exaggerated to some extent. But since Plato makes a point to "underline" so to speak both the antiquity and location of Atlantis, we can be certain that he did not mean a people that existed in the eastern Mediterranean, not the western Mediterranean, nor hardly the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, even if Greek records were sorely lacking on the history of the Sea People, Egyptian records were certainly not. They would not make such a great mistake as to place them in the Atlantic Ocean whilst they clearly came from the east. Nor would they gain any advantage by deceiving Solon of their origin, should the story of how Atlantis actually became known Solon actually have existed, of course. Of this, I can only refer to you to Helios' seemingly essential point regarding the "truth" of the story.

Any "homographs" built into the tale are, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but I remind you, gentlemen, that the original dialogues are lost and we are merely working from "translations of translations" at best. This leaves the work open to all manner of errors, both numerical and grammatical, and one can't even be certain of what they are seeing. We aren't even reading Plato's original words.

There is a thread on this forum entitled "Sea People" that, for me, at least, has much worthy information on it. I suggest that everyone who intends to champion the Sea People familiarize themselves with it as it might immediately clear up some common misconceptions regarding the origins of the Sea People.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:55:17 pm
Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 10:55 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, I read that, according to Helios, you perhaps need a better understanding of Plato's works. Perhaps this link might be of some use to you:
http://www.plato-dialogues.org/works.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:55:51 pm
Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 11:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, there also seems to be some confusion on your part as to the wherabouts of Professor Christopher Gill. Mr. Gill hails from the University of Exeter, if memory serves, and here is a link dealing with his publications:
http://www.frontlist.com/booklist/34821
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:56:14 pm
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 01:24 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance. It's know'n so many things that ain't so.
Josh Billings.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:56:55 pm
atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 07-12-2004 03:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link that lists 4 articles dealing with Atlantis, which Christopher Gil has published in various journals. http://www.ex.ac.uk/classics/staff/c_gill_pubs.htm
quote:
`The Origin of the Atlantis Myth', Trivium 11 (l976), 1-11.

`The Genre of the Atlantis Story', Classical Philology 72 (l977), 287-304.

`Plato and Politics: the Critias and the Politicus', Phronesis 24 (l979), l48-67.

`Plato's Atlantis Story and the Birth of Fiction', Philosophy and Literature 3 (l979), 64-78.


[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 07-12-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2432 | From: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:57:32 pm
 
Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 07-13-2004 07:20 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you are, Erick, a chance to become better acquainted with Mr. Gill's material. Seize it. Thank you Atalante.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:58:07 pm
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2004 05:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick's research sounds very interesting to me, and I don't think anyone should give
their opinions until they have read the whole HJCP article. You can't say:"
Sloppy reasearch!" when you haven't seen it as a whole.
Quote Chronos: Simply the fact that the Sea Peoples have no legend of a cicular city does not in itself prove that there was no Atlantis.

The fact that we don't ( yet ) know about any concentric city connected to the Sea Peoples doesn't mean that there never was such a city connected to them.

Quote Chronos: There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Actually there is.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett:
For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against
the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end.

Asia included both Turkey and the Middle-East. The Sea Peoples invaded parts of
Europe and Asia allied with the Libyans, as did the Atlanteans.

Quote Chronos: Erick, I read that, according to Helios, you perhaps need a better understanding of Plato's works.

The important thing is that Erick doesn't need a better understanding of Plato's work to prove his research.

Quote from Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett: "The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Erick: In other words, even Critias (or Plato?) wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!"

I totally agree here. Plato(or Critias) thought the measurements was incredible, almost unbelievable, but decided to pass on the story, very much like Diodorus and Herodotus decided to pass on legends and myths to preserve them, even though they didn't believe in everything they heard. Some people, in the time of Diodorus, stated that the earth was round. He decided to include this statement in one of his books, even though he thought it was unbelievable and almost ridiculous.
I think it is obvious ( when you have read the first part of Critias ) that Plato( or Critias ) was passing on an old story, as he remembered it.

Interesting part of Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett:

" I can only attempt to show that I ought to have more indulgence than you, because my theme is more difficult; and I shall argue that to seem to speak well of the gods to men is far easier than to speak well of men to men: for the inexperience and utter ignorance of his hearers about any subject is a great assistance to him who has to speak of it, and we know how ignorant we are concerning the gods. But I should like to make my meaning clearer, if Timaeus, you will follow me.

All that is said by any of us can only be imitation and representation. For if we consider the likenesses which painters make of bodies divine and heavenly, and the different degrees of gratification with which the eye of the spectator receives them, we shall see that we are satisfied with the artist who is able in any degree to imitate the earth and its mountains, and the rivers, and the woods, and the universe, and the things that are and move therein, and further, that knowing nothing precise about such matters, we do not examine or analyze the painting; all that is required is a sort of indistinct and deceptive mode of shadowing them forth. But when a person endeavours to paint the human form we are quick at finding out defects, and our familiar knowledge makes us severe judges of any one who does not render every point of similarity. And we may observe the same thing to happen in discourse; we are satisfied with a picture of divine and heavenly things which has very little likeness to them; but we are more precise in our criticism of mortal and human things. Wherefore if at the moment of speaking I cannot suitably express my meaning, you must excuse me, considering that to form approved likenesses of human things is the reverse of easy. This is what I want to suggest to you, and at the same time to beg, Socrates, that I may have not less, but more indulgence conceded to me in what I am about to say. Which favour, if I am right in asking, I hope that you will be ready to grant. "

Examples of defects in the story is:
1. "A Bronze Age nation 9000 years ago".
2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

Critias explains that Timaeus task was easier because it was cosmological in nature, while Critias "Tale of Atlantis" was a difficult one. Plato warned his readers. ("All that is said by any of us can only be imitation and representation")

Was he saying that we shouldn't take the story literally? ( because he didn't remember it correctly or because much of it, was, or may have been invented/changed over time? )
Did he want us to look at it as a painting of reality?
Did he meant to say: "I´m just passing on an ancient tradition, don't take everything literally."?

One thing is certain: Plato(or Critias) knew that the story was incredible ( almost unbelievable ).

Plato: "all that is required is a sort of indistinct and deceptive mode of shadowing them forth"

indistinct: not clear
deceptive: making you believe something that is not true:

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-20-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:58:31 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2004 07:39 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas,
How calm you sound!!

I wanted to insert this....

RE: 2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

I believe strongly that, as proposed by Felice Vinci in HOMER IN THE BALTIC, "as large as" refers to length of coast-line, NOT area, as is commonly assumed. These estimates of size were given by sea-going peoples, who would naturally observe coast-line rather than inland. This may give scholars a new view of the possibilities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:58:58 pm
Dreamweaver
New Member
Member # 2057

Rate Member   posted 07-20-2004 09:23 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Atlantis in Indonesia (oh, come on!)"
This was my initial impression when I first stumbled upon that theory, but I now I find it to be one of the most believable. So far this claim, which I first came across at http://www.atlan.org, actually boasts the most shall I say "evidence" (since no theory has obviously been proven), than any other theory, IMHO. Even the obvious questions of "why isn't it in the Atlantic?" or "why isn't it just outside the Pillars of Hercules?" is directly answered without contradicting Plato’s story. I’m not saying I'm 100% convinced Atlantis was here (although at the very least I'm pretty sure it was home to A civilization during the same time) I’m just saying that I think it's been substantiated by the strongest scientific research and historical facts thus far.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m closed off to others theories that place Atlantis in the present-day Atlantic Ocean or South America. However, I’m not so inclined to believe Atlantis was anywhere in the Mediterranean, and I find Antarctica to be one of the least plausible theories of all. I enjoy reading and taking into consideration all arguments for Atlantis though.  :)


[This message has been edited by Dreamweaver (edited 07-20-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2004 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 10:59:52 pm
 
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2004 10:19 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, Jonas, I am really disappointed in you. So now you bought into the "Plato made it all up theory" too? Fine, but I think it's pretty apparent here that a lot of Erick's evidence, eptimology, homographs and judgments are is in the eye of the beholder. Common sense should tell you that, even if Plato did make the whole thing up, he wouldn't need to insert a lot of needless metaphors in order to "wink" at the reader.
As for your other point, not enough is known about the Sea People to build a case for Atlantis. There probably never will be either, as most of the records pre-1200 b.c. have been destroyed according to the material I've studied. A loose conglomeration of cities that sometimes unite to make war on Egypt and the Hittites? Atlantis was supposed to be a large empire, in the ATLANTIC, not a loose alliance of city-states. They actually fit just as well, if not better, as a renegade people, post-Atlantis than the sole basis for Atlantis itself.

I noticed you didn't mention the time element, 1200 b.c. as opposed to 9000 b.c. in you impasssioned defense, nor the fact that the Sea People originated from Turkey while Plato clearly places Atlantis "beyond the Pillars of Hercules," in the Atlantic Ocean.

Where is the continent, larger than Libya and Asia combined..?

I know, next you'll say that it was not "bigger than" but "in the middle of."

What about the large, flat rectangular plain?
How about the elephants, do they get a lot of elephants in Turkey?

Two growing seasons??

Any canals there one hundred foot deep, five and a half miles long?

So long as we're quoting Plato, let's look at the whole account, shall we, not just the parts that suit our purposes.

Let me help you out with some of the answers to some of these, as, of course we know the same ones from the Santorini argument. Of course, we all know the answer to the time element factor, too, Solon mistook the Egyptian symbol for one thousand for one hundred, right? Clever. They look nothing alike.

The sad truth for both of you is that, if the Egyptians were involved, the time element wouldn't be as nebulous as anyone suggests, they were, to put it mildly, very accurate keepers of time.

Or maybe the Egyptians weren't involved at all, and Plato, or Solon, simply "made the whole thing up." In which case the new theory doesn't mean anything anyway because "academics" have long thought anyway. It's nothing new to them. In that case, buying into this would be akin to "selling out."

Friendship seems to be driving your defense of this, nothing more, and the sad truth of the matter is that neither of you is as educated on the subject as you would have others believe. When it comes to Atlantis, there are no experts. There's only one real account, that of Plato, and we're all entitled to read it.

This effort to come up with something new on Atlantis just to be "original" is really getting wearisome. Maybe the truth is just where it's always been said to be and you people can't find it, or have gotten tired of looking. Either you believe in it or you don't, but if you don't believe in it, the question remains, why even come here in the first place?

As I said once before, if you really didn't believe in Atlantis to begin with, were simply here to "solve a mystery," then it's not going to take a lot to convince you otherwise. Well, swell, solve the mystery for yourselves, put your friendship first, just don't expect most of us to take your word for it and come along for the ride, not nor, or ever. For most of us here, the mystery remains, and probably always will remain...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:00:36 pm
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 02:22 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't bought into anything Dhill. I still haven't read the HJCP article, and I don't think that Plato made it up. If this story was made up, then it must have been either Solon or an Egyptian priest who did it.
I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child.

Dhill: Where is the continent, larger than Libya and Asia combined..?

The original Egyptian account was probably refering to coastlands. An alliance of coastlands mightier than Libya and Asia combined.

Dhill: Of course, we all know the answer to the time element factor, too, Solon mistook the Egyptian symbol for one thousand for one hundred, right? Clever.

Remember that the Egyptian priest mentioned mythical kings from the time of Theseus in connection to the war. This is definitely not 9000 years before Solon. Plato is very clearly describing a Bronze Age culture, and the fact that the Egyptian priest said that the ancient Greek civilization collapsed and lost its writing is very important, because we know that this happened approximately 1100 B.C in close relation to the invasions of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples. Is this just a coincidence? Definitely not. The priest also said that the legend of Phaethon had a kernel of truth, and this story is clearly describing the events around 1100 B.C. All this tells me that either

1. Plato's Atlantean invasion is the invasions of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples.

OR

2. Plato's Atlantean invasion was another huge invasion roughly at the same time as the Invasion of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples.

Dhill: What about the large, flat rectangular plain? How about the elephants, do they get a lot of elephants in Turkey? Two growing seasons??

All of those descriptions could easily be found in connection to the Sea Peoples, if Solon didn't invent it. I´ll write more soon.

Warm Regards, Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-21-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:01:10 pm
bluducky

Member
Member # 1880

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 04:35 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it just me, or does EVERYBODY who joins these forums start by picking a fight with someone over differing views?
I's interesting that very few people on the 4th page here actually said something remotely regarding Atlantis....

Important or not, you're going about it the wrong way.

History has shown that to get things done, each does their own particular, specialized jobs, and together, they bear fruit.

A General is nothing without his troops.

Who's the Linguist? Let him be linguist.
Who's the Geographer? Let him be geographer.

Etc etc....

Assume a role, and let others do likewise.

No one is right 100% of the time, so stop trying to be.

If I may make a suggestion: Employ a ground penetrating radar. Devices like this have previously been used to map the ocean floor; Why does no one try the same whilst looking for a great archaeological site?

no? well, what about a satellite radar?


(think about it, If it were visible, it would have been found already, right? and the 10 tons of spacedust falling to earth each and every day, plus Earth's ravaging weather, covering up our history, coupled with Atlantis THEORETICALLY being near water, would soon render such a measure necessary)

(see? this is exactly why I don't bother with the 'Atlantis' threads. Everybody thinks they're right, and allows NO room for alternatives, some even disregarding the words of Plato himself, perhaps assuming that he had 'made a mistake' somehow. These fruitless discussions are a joke.)

Noone finds anything by arguing over theories...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1626 | From: Queensland, Australia | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:01:41 pm
Chronos

Member
Member # 2051

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 08:25 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of "picking a fight" I would like to respond to a few points directed towards my "posting."
quote:

"Quote Chronos: Simply the fact that the Sea Peoples have no legend of a cicular city does not in itself prove that there was no Atlantis.

The fact that we don't ( yet ) know about any concentric city connected to the Sea Peoples doesn't mean that there never was such a city connected to them."

It also doesn't prove that they ever had one either. If some of you aren't going to allow Atlantis the benefit of the doubt, you shouldn't be offering it to the Sea People either.

quote:

"Quote Chronos: There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

"Actually there is.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett:

"For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against
the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end."

Actually, Jonas, you should have continued on with the rest of the quote, which reads:

"For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."

The location of Atlantis is clearly fixed in the Atlantic Ocean, the Asia reference is clearly mentioned only in passing, and the geography painted by Plato clearly does not match Turkey, but rather, an area around the Atlantic. One has to work very hard to get Turkey into the Atlantis equation.

quote:

"Quote Chronos: Erick, I read that, according to Helios, you perhaps need a better understanding of Plato's works.

"The important thing is that Erick doesn't need a better understanding of Plato's work to prove his research."

No, but if one is going to comment on Plato and tell us what he meant, one would think he would try and get a keen understanding.

quote:

Regarding Atlantis' great ditch and the evidence of it as the story being imaginary:

"I totally agree here. Plato(or Critias) thought the measurements was incredible, almost unbelievable, but decided to pass on the story, very much like Diodorus and Herodotus decided to pass on legends and myths to preserve them, even though they didn't believe in everything they heard."

One detail in itself does not make the whole story incredible. Having said that, yes, perhaps there are some embellishments. Which ones? Well, I suppose if we ever find Atlantis, we'll see.

"Examples of defects in the story is:
1. "A Bronze Age nation 9000 years ago".
2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

Sea travel was accomplished by the ancient people as early as 40,000 b.c. as evidenced by the fact of human occupation on both Australia and Indonesia. That was thirty thousand years before the time that Atlantis was supposed to have existed. It would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that, nine thousand years before Plato, a similar Bronze Age civilization also sprung up. In any event, the truth of this is at the heart of the Atlantis debate, is it not?

"A sunken island larger than Libya and Asia combined," I'll take this point, too, since you referenced it later. Plato may not call it a continent, you may not call it a continent, but something of the size that Plato mentions would have been almost certainly bigger than an "island." It would be about the size as Australia, one of the known "continents."

"One thing is certain: Plato(or Critias) knew that the story was incredible ( almost unbelievable ).

"Remarkable" might be a better way to put it as opposed to "almost unbelievable." Egypt is also remarkable, too, one can also say it is "incredible." I doubt that anyone would believe in the Sphinx or the Great Pyramid if it didn't exist before their own eyes.

The Sea People have long been linked with Atlantis, nonetheless, my original points still remain, which are:

(1.) Atlantis operated from a base clearly in the Atlantic, the Sea People were clearly from Asia Minor.

(2.) The limits to the Atlantean empire stretched from the Atlantic to the western Mediterranean, to the boundaries of Egypt and Tyrhennia, while the Sea People, if not controlled, at least made war with the eastern Mediterranean.

(3) In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

Dhill also raised several more points regarding the elephants, geography, growing season and geography. Now you'll produced evidence of an elephant skeleton in Turkey in the era of 1200 b.c. However, it is important to realize that, if we are to take Plato literally, these comparisons are forced, for it is clearly stated that Atlantis lay "in the Atlantic."

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."

[This message has been edited by Chronos (edited 07-21-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1008 | From: various | Registered: Jul 2004


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:02:10 pm
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 03:50 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Chronos: It also doesn't prove that they ever had one either.
True, but my point was that the Sea Peoples is a great mystery in itself.

Quote Chronos: Actually, Jonas, you should have continued on with the rest of the quote, which reads: ...........

The location of Atlantis is clearly fixed in the Atlantic Ocean, the Asia reference is clearly mentioned only in passing, and the geography painted by Plato clearly does not match Turkey, but rather, an area around the Atlantic. One has to work very hard to get Turkey into the Atlantis equation.

True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek. This is why the king was named Atlas and the ocean Atlantic. I´ll write more regarding this later.

A question for you:

How could Gades(modern Cadiz) be mentioned in the original Egyptian account if it didn't exist in the time of Atlantis?
Gades was founded approx 1100 B.C according to ancient authors, and much later if we are looking at the archaeological record. Isn't Erick's "Gedeirus" the most obvious solution to this problem? I mean, Plato wrote that Solon translated each meaning of the original Egyptian names into Greek. This created Atlas, Gades, the Atlantic Ocean and so on.

Quote Chronos: In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Plato very clearly states that they invaded Asia. This includes eastern Turkey and the Middle-East. They held sway as far as Egypt and Tyrhennia, but made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia.

Quote Chronos: Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

Yes this is around the same time as the Trojan war, but also in the time of mythical kings such as Cecrops, Erechteus and Theseus ( mentioned by the Egyptian priest ). This is also when the ancient Greek civilization collapsed and lost its writing, exactly like the Egyptian priest said. Everything makes perfectly sense.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett
in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age by Manuel Robbins
In Greece, Linear B records were no longer kept after the disasters that occured toward the end of 1190 B.C, and this seem to signal the end of the palace-centered management of the economy, it is safe to say that the palace no longer ruled.

Greek began to sink irreversibly into a profound depression that lasted for centuries. Nothing is known of Greece in the long-lasting dark period that followed from any contemporary record, and the land was so impoverished, so lacking in material possessions, that archaeologists have found little which would illuminate those times.
There was no writing, even in the alphabetic script which came to Greece later.

All aspects of high culture were gone. It is a question whether what remained can still be considered civilization, so severe seems the regression.

Plato: for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age by Manuel Robbins
It is primarily the evidence of destruction in the urban centers of Bronze
Age Greece which has given shape to the barbarian invasion theory, and which
has influenced other theories as well.

Myceane: In South House also, walls collapsed. In the Cult Center, walls were damaged. The House of Idols burned down. Following this, Mycenae continued to be occupied into IIIC but with little evidence of rebuilding. This destruction in Mycenae is now attributed to another earthquake.

Tiryns: Twenty miles south of Mycenae, the citadel of Tiryns severely damaged in a great fire, at about the time of the destruction in the Mycenae citadel it is thought. Evidence of ground shift and the remains of a woman trapped under the remains of fallen walls point towards earthquake.

Midea: A few miles east of Tiryns, Midea was severely damaged at the end of IIIB Late, an event again attributed to earthquake.

Thebes: At Thebes there is some evidence of a great fire and destruction in IIIB Late.

Iolkos: At Iolkos, the palace was burned, possibly in IIIC.

Orchomenos: Near Orchomenos, on a high point in Lake Copais, was the fortress of Gla. Gla was part of the defenses of Orchomenos. Signs of fire have been found there, associated with late IIIB or possibly IIIC pottery.

Pylos: The palace of Pylos and its associated buildings were consumed in a terrible fire, never again to be occupied. This happaned about the same time of the destruction in Mycenae.

The Countryside: In The Late Bronze Age, nearly every fertile valley of Greece contained clusters of towns and villages. From the pottery, something can be learned of the period in which the town or village thrived. Largely by these means, close to 500 settlement sites in mainland Greece have been found dating to IIIB period. Pottery evidence from these sites shows something very remarkable. Almost half of the sites do not continue into IIIC. A major disaster occured in the countryside.

Overall removal or disappearance: close to half the population, hundreds of thousands of people

Palmer believed that he had identified in the Pylos tablets records of defensive preparations made in anticipation of an attack, the attack in which Pylos was destroyed. Together, they speak of a situation of high tension and anxiety, a situation of high military alert. These dispositions appear to be directed to an attack expected from the sea, from the south.

Not all the centers or cities experienced
destruction. Athens survived, and seemed to have remembered that survival in later legends, yet even in Athens there is evidence that the city made preparations against the threat of a dangerous assault.

Archaeologists have found evidence that the walls were strengthened and a defensive
bastion added in order to better protect the main gate. At close to the same time,
within the citadel, a shaft was driven down through 120 feet of rock in order
to reach water. A wooden stairway was fitted along the inside of this shaft.

Earlier, water was obtained from a well outside the wall. However, to be able to withstand a long siege, a source of water accessible from within the walls was indespensable. Such preparations appear to show a concern of a possible attack, the need to withstand a long siege. There is no evidence of destruction, no evidence
of an attack on the citadel, and this is entirely in accord with the belief of later Athenians that Athens was never conquered, never abandoned.

Mycenaeans migrated out of the mainland in increasing numbers, many heading for the islands to the south and the east. And great epic poems fall silent concerning anything past a generation or two after the Trojan War. << As The Egyptian priest told Solon: the Greeks lost their writing and didn't remember their distant past, while the Egyptians preserved all the details in their temples.

Plato: Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times,

Plato: This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods;

Sounds very much like the collapse of Bronze Age Greek. Athens survived the attack of the invaders and a lot of earthquakes occured in close relation to this.

I dont think this is a coincidence.

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-21-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:02:29 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-21-2004 06:06 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas,
This really is the "kicker" in the whole magilla isn't it.
"True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek. This is why the king was named Atlas and the ocean Atlantic."

With Sarmast's Cyprus location every point in Plato's story fits perfectly except this apparent "Atlantic" and "beyond the pillars of Heracles" stuff. Obviously someone is translating something erroneously and you appear to be exactly on the right track. Why is that?

Reminds me of that scene in Raiders when everyone else was digging in the wrong place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:02:54 pm
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 06:24 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I´m saying right now is that the Egyptian priest very clearly was refering to
the events at the collapse of the Bronze Age, whether the invaders came from the
Atlantic Ocean or not.
Regards, Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-21-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:03:24 pm
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 07-21-2004 09:51 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting references, Jonas, and I'm glad you told me that you don't think Plato made it all up. But it still does not prove a Sea People link to Atlantis. It proves that their foes were very frightened of the Sea People, that in itself does not prove they were Atlantis. Many civilizations were wiped out in ancient times, I suppose you could find similar accounts of the terror inflicted by the Romans, the Persians, or Alexander the Great when they were building their empires from the people they conquered. That was simply how they did things back then. Coincidence? Maybe a little more than you care to admit.
"An island larger than Libya and Asia combined."

Coastline. Well, perhaps, but the area still fits better in the Atlantic than the eastern Mediterranean. You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic. It certainly doesn't when it comes to the Atlantic itself:

"and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded
the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."

Saying that the Mediterranean was the true ocean implies that the Greeks knew nothing about the Atlantic. Actually they, not the Romans, were the ones to probably name the Atlantic.

There seems to be a lot of skimming over the most vital points of the account, geography, the time it existed in, the type of civilization they had, the physical description of the island itself, all to get to the Sea People.

Atlantis was supposed to have been destroyed by flooding and earthquakes. Where is the earthquake, or has it become a volcano, Santorini again? The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Then, there is still the question of the location. If you're going to translate all the Egyptian names back into their Greek again, the one name that still remains the sticking point is "Atlantis" or "Atlantic." I suppose the Atlantic references were added later, like Robert Sarmast, right?

your quote:

"Remember that the Egyptian priest mentioned mythical kings from the time of Theseus in
connection to the war. This is definitely not 9000 years before Solon."

The reference to Theseus could also simply be because it is the earliest age that the Greeks could remember. In which case, they wouldn't know or care what the year was, only that it was the start of their history.

There are superficial similarities when you compare the Sea People with Atlantis. There are the same ones, perhaps even better ones if you compare the Minoan culture with Atlantis, and, for whatever reason, people aren't doing that anymore.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:03:50 pm
docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 07-21-2004 10:10 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I don`t understand is why Erick would post his changed theory on Atlantis frist on this thread (The Worst Theories On Atlantis) if if he did`nt think the theory would really hold up. :) Erick?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8027 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:04:08 pm
 
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-22-2004 04:40 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Dhill: But it still does not prove a Sea People link to Atlantis.
I didn't say it does. What I´m saying is that Greece was preparing for invasions from the Sea. Athens obviously survived those invasions, and soon after that the whole of Greece went into a Dark Age, without any written documents. This is exactly what the Egyptian priest told happened after the Atlantean invasions.

Quote from the Collapse of the Bronze Age: And great epic poems fall silent concerning anything past a generation or two after the Trojan War.

In other words: The Greeks didn't remember what happened during those times. Atlantean invasions took place according to the Egyptian priest.

This doesn't prove or disprove that the Atlanteans was the Sea Peoples, but it seem to prove that Plato's Atlantean invasions took place in this time period.


Quote Dhill: You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic.

I didn't say that it matches Turkey better.
I have always said that the best match is the Atlantic side of Morocco, without doubt.

Quote Dhill: Atlantis was supposed to have been destroyed by flooding and earthquakes. Where is the earthquake, or has it become a volcano, Santorini again? The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Believe me, flooding and earthquakes occured in those times. Evidence of great earthquakes and floods has been found all over the world in connection to the Bronze Age collapse. You will find both earthquakes, floods and "mud" in the story of Phaethon, which the Egyptian priest said had a kernel of truth. Santorini was not the only massive disaster. Guess why it is called "the collapse of the Bronze Age". Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, invasions, great migrations, drought, famine etc took place everywhere.

From the Phaethon myth: Everywhere the ground breaks apart, light penetrates through the cracks down into Tartarus, and terrifies the king of the underworld and his queen. The sea contracts and what was a moment ago wide sea is a parched expanse of sand.

Quote Dhill: There are superficial similarities when you compare the Sea People with Atlantis. There are the same ones, perhaps even better ones if you compare the Minoan culture with Atlantis, and, for whatever reason, people aren't doing that anymore.

The only true similarity between the Minoan culture and Atlantis is the bull ritual with golden cups. We don't know enough about the Sea Peoples to discuss similarities.

Quote Dhill: If you're going to translate all the Egyptian names back into their Greek again, the one name that still remains the sticking point is "Atlantis" or "Atlantic." I suppose the Atlantic references were added later, like Robert Sarmast, right?

I don't know anything about Robert Sarmast.
One thing is certain: The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that. If the true location actually was the Atlantic is unknown. Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-22-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:04:35 pm
 
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 07-22-2004 12:22 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Jonas: 07/21
"True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek."

Quote Jonas: 07/22:

Quote Dhill:You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic.

"I didn't say that it matches Turkey better. I have always said that the best match is the Atlantic side of Morocco, without doubt."

So which is it?

Personally, I liked your Morocco theory better, too.

my quote:

The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Quote Jonas:

"Believe me, flooding and earthquakes occured in those times. Evidence of great earthquakes and floods has been found all over the world in connection to the Bronze Age collapse. You will find both earthquakes, floods and "mud" in the story of Phaethon, which the Egyptian priest said had a kernel of truth. Santorini was not the only massive disaster. Guess why it is called "the collapse of the Bronze Age". Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, invasions, great migrations, drought, famine etc took place everywhere."

Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini.

Here is a quote from material Helios posted yesterday on the Sea People thread:

"The abrupt end of several civilizations in the decades traditionally dated around 1200 BC have caused many ancient historians to hypothesize that the Sea People caused the collapse of the Hittite, Mycenaean and Mittani kingdoms. However, Marc Van De Mieroop and others have argued against this theory on several points. Grimal argues that the kingdoms of the Mittani, Assyria, and Babylon were more likely destroyed by a group who dwelled on the edges of the settled lands called by the Akkadian word habiru. Another argument Grimal makes is that the attempted Sea People invasion of Egypt that Ramses III foiled is now seen as nothing more than a minor skirmish, the records of his victories on his temple walls being greatly exaggerated. Though it is clear from the archeological excavations that Ugarit, Ashkelon and Hazor were destroyed about this time, Carchemish was not and other cities in the area such as Byblos and Sidon survived unscathed."

Here is another quote:
http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/gktrib.html#Sea%20People <http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/gktrib.html>

"THE SEA PEOPLES Students of European history will be familiar in a general way with thephenomena of the devolution of Classic cultures, the swarming forth of innumerable barbarian tribes, and the subsequent emergence of the so-called "Dark Ages", together with the slow re-emergence of a vibrant civilization in the Mediaeval and Renaissance eras. Such a model is an oversimplification of what occured, but it is valid at least in broad descriptive outline. What is perhaps less well recognized is that such a pattern has happened, albeit on a smaller scale, before. Before the 1200's BCE, the Eastern Mediterranean played host to a variety of sophisticated civilizations. For a variety of reasons, the 17th to 13th centuries BCE saw a general retreat, one which did not begin to reverse itself until the 9th century BCE (leading to the eventual flowering of Classic-Age civilization by the 5th century)"

The links for both quotes are posted under the Sea People thread. You can take a lot of things from this, one of the most important being that there were other conditions than the Sea People that caused the Bronze Dark Age, that their influence was, perhaps, overestimated, that Ramses might have not even fought them at all, and that "as abruptly as they enter history, the Sea People leave it.." It is, perhaps, an oversimplification to say that they were the basis for Plato's account.

Quote Jonas:

"The only true similarity between the Minoan culture and Atlantis is the bull ritual with golden cups. We don't know enough about the Sea Peoples to discuss similarities."

That's actually wrong. We actually know less about the Minoans because they left no written histories, and we at least have accounts of the Sea People, suspect as they are. Both are sea-faring peoples, in the eastern Mediterranean, exerted some influence. The cult of the bull has at least has a literal relation with Plato's account, the Sea People attacks may have been a war, they may also have been simply raids, similar to the Vikings.

Quote Jonas:

"I don't know anything about Robert Sarmast.
One thing is certain: The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that. If the true location actually was the Atlantic is unknown. Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?"

Robert Sarmast is the investigator searching a sunken area of Cyprus, which he assumes, was Atlantis, if not Eden. He is the author of the book "Discovery of Atlantis." A good deal of his theory rests in the notion that the Atlantis references were added later.

Quote Jonas:

"The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that."

Which means that the Atlantic reference had to come from somewhere, it didn't emerge out of thin air.

Quote Jonas:

"Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?"

This is exactly the kind of "shortcutting" that I personally hate to fit a theory. So much work to prove a connection that is, at best, vague and indistinguishable. Then, "skidding" over a major point of the story. I suppose if we're looking at a definition for "sloppy research" it would be something similar to this. Where is the basis for it? It may well be that the whole thing is simply a story, but, as others have also noted on this thread, several time Critias attests to the story's "truth."

There is a lot of good information on the Sea People in the 'Sea People' thread. I doubt you've had the chance to read it all. Your main source seems to be "Collapse of the Bronze Age" by Manuel Robbins. I don't doubt it's worth, but personally, I like to get at least two or three different corroborating sources before I formulate an opinion on something. Maybe, since, as you say, you aren't trying to prove "a Sea People link to Atlantis" with this material this discussion should be continued over there.

 :)


[This message has been edited by dhill757 (edited 07-22-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004   
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:05:32 pm
 
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-22-2004 04:49 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhill,
you penned an interesting insight while replying to Jonas.......
"Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini. "

Perhaps dhill and jonas it was something completely different. Could this possibly be the answer to what happened to Greece?


"No nation ever attained such heights of artistic philosophy in so short a time; none ever created such an advanced system of ethics practically without Deity and entirely devoid of the promise of human salvation; no nation ever plunged so quickly, deeply, and violently into such depths of intellectual stagnation, moral depravity, and spiritual poverty as these same Greek peoples when they flung themselves into the mad whirl of the mystery cults."
http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper98.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003
 


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:06:05 pm
Jonas Bergman
Member
Member # 1582

Member Rated:
   posted 07-23-2004 06:00 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Dhill: posted 07-22-2004 12:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Jonas: 07/21
"True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek."
Quote Jonas: 07/22:

Quote Dhill:You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic.

"I didn't say that it matches Turkey better. I have always said that the best match is the Atlantic side of Morocco, without doubt."

So which is it?

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

What I meant was that it may match parts of the eastern Mediterranean coastlands too. I´ll show you what I mean later.

Quote Dhill: Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini.

Or why not famine, drought, invasions, plague and earthquakes at the same time?

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age
However, there is no reason to believe, nor does the evidence require, that the collapse of Mycenaean civilization was produced by a single cause. Had there been but one cause, whether war or natural catastrophe, a society which was otherwise healthy could be expected to have recovered. The Mycenaean civilization of the mainland did not. It was wounded, recovered for a time and only to a degree, and then slid into oblivion. It is a common observation that trouble comes in twos or threes, and it has happened that a multiplicity occur nearly the same time. In year AD 1347, Plague raged in Cyprus. Then a devastating earthquake struck, destroying cities. It was followed by a damaging tidal wave that surged over much of the island, entirely destroying olive groves and the fishing fleet upon which the economy depended.
It is reasonable to expect that there were several contributing factors in the collapse of Bronze Age Greece.

Quote Dhill: You can take a lot of things from this, one of the most important being that there were other conditions than the Sea People that caused the Bronze Dark Age

When did I say that the Sea People caused the Bronze Dark Age?

Quote Dhill: Which means that the Atlantic reference had to come from somewhere, it didn't emerge out of thin air.

The Atlantic reference came from the name "Atlas".

Quote from Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett
And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and
after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic.

If you want to find the word used in the original Egyptian account you must look for Egyptian words with equal meaning ( i.e to endure, to bear ), because Plato told us that Solon translated each meaning of the original names giving birth to "Atlas, Ampheres etc". If you find a word in the Egyptian language with the meaning "to endure, to bear" and the Egyptians used that word when they were refering to the Atlantic Ocean or an area there, then you probably have true reference to the Atlantic Ocean in the story of Atlantis. We can't just skip the fact that Solon translated the meaning of each original name into Greek.

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

[This message has been edited by Jonas Bergman (edited 07-23-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 314 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Jul 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:06:35 pm
Quark N Doodle
Member
Member # 1886

Rate Member   posted 07-23-2004 06:25 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Atlantis on another world theory reminds me of a little neighbor girl when I wasa kid. A nice little girl, but couldn't play or pretend or anything fun. Just couldn't do it. I know we tried to play housse once, and she didn't know how. so I decided to teach er and we built all our pretend stuff, and all she contributed was to decide that we'd play some poker. Then when I corrected her that was not playing house, she said, "well in my house, It's poker night."
She wasnt' real popular with all the upstanding mommy's. Then she told me once that she was more grown up than the grown ups are, and I kind of liked that attitude, but you sure couldn't talk to her about anything important. Eventually she just sort of shut down or something. Later, I decided she was one of those robotic grey aliens or something that was so poular back then, but my grandma corrected that right away.I loved my grandma dearly, but she sure could make the sparks fly when she wanted to.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 180 | Registered: Mar 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:07:00 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-23-2004 09:52 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absonite,
I really enjoyed the Urantia page you offered above...The following precedes the entry you posted. I am pointing it out because it underlines what I have understood the Bock saga to say about the migrations south following close of the "cilmatic optimum" in the far north...Notice the name "Hellenic" for those from Hel...bringing their pantheon of gods from Hyper-borea (see my thread HOMER IN THE BALTIC for insight as to Olympus in what is now Lapland.....
"These Hellenic invaders brought along with them anthropomorphic God concepts similar to those which their Aryan fellows had carried to India.

This importation inaugurated the evolution of the Greek family of gods and goddesses.

This new religion was partly based on the cults of the incoming Hellenic barbarians, but it also shared in the myths of the older inhabitants of Greece.

The Hellenic Greeks found the Mediterranean world largely dominated by the mother cult, and they imposed upon these peoples their man-god, Dyaus-Zeus, who had already become, like Yahweh among the henotheistic Semites, head of the whole Greek pantheon of subordinate gods. And the Greeks would have eventually achieved a true monotheism in the concept of Zeus except for their retention of the overcontrol of Fate. A God of final value must, himself, be the arbiter of fate and the creator of destiny.

As a consequence of these factors in religious evolution, there presently developed the popular belief in the happy-go-lucky gods of Mount Olympus, gods more human than divine, and gods which the intelligent Greeks never did regard very seriously. They neither greatly loved nor greatly feared these divinities of their own creation. They had a patriotic and racial feeling for Zeus and his family of half men and half gods, but they hardly reverenced or worshiped them.

The Hellenes became so impregnated with the antipriestcraft doctrines of the earlier Salem teachers that no priesthood of any importance ever arose in Greece. Even the making of images to the gods became more of a work in art than a matter of worship.

The Olympian gods illustrate man's typical anthropomorphism. But the Greek mythology was more aesthetic than ethic. The Greek religion was helpful in that it portrayed a universe governed by a deity group. But Greek morals, ethics, and philosophy presently advanced far beyond the god concept, and this imbalance between intellectual and spiritual growth was as hazardous to Greece as it had proved to be in India."

"But the average men of these times could not grasp, nor were they much interested in, the Greek philosophy of self-realization and an abstract Deity; they rather craved promises of salvation, coupled with a personal God who could hear their prayers. They exiled the philosophers, persecuted the remnants of the Salem cult, both doctrines having become much blended, and made ready for that terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults which were
then overspreading the Mediterranean lands. The Eleusinian mysteries grew up within the Olympian pantheon, a Greek version of the worship of fertility; Dionysus nature worship flourished; the best of the cults was the Orphic brotherhood, whose moral preachments and promises of salvation made a great appeal to many."

(...terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults...)

I think that these mystery cults were made from the remnants of memory of the strict pagan culture of planned breeding and use of sperm and (sap) as connected to health and intelligence/god/perfection, but so far removed from the time and culture where it was valid that it had no intrinsic connection to people (culture) as a whole, which it did originally.

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-23-2004).]

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-23-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:07:20 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-23-2004 11:43 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock,
"(...terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults...)

I think that these mystery cults were made from the remnants of memory of the strict pagan culture of planned breeding and use of sperm and (sap) as connected to health and intelligence/god/perfection, but so far removed from the time and culture where it was valid that it had no intrinsic connection to people (culture) as a whole, which it did originally. "

from what I understand of where I think you are trying to go here is really what happened in the phases of mixed evolution of the principals and purposes of the beginnings of mortal and super-mortal life on Earth.
please see my link on the Sea People thread regarding my latest post on hte different races and how they came to be.
There were really a few different things going on, some hard to believe but nonetheless true. We really are quite a mixture of evolution(originally planted) and actual alien intervention.

As you progress in all of this you will understand how much sense the old myths of Enki, Enlil and others make. Enki/Marduk was Adam.
What you should realize as well when you see pictures of Enki/Marduk and what looks like water always coming from his shoulders is really what you call the "sap" or sperm. He and Eve were the fertility Gods, and his genes upgraded the evolutionary Cro-Magnons and populated the Earth as we know it today. All planned and carried out from the start.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/texts/enki/enkiworld.htm

[This message has been edited by Absonite (edited 07-23-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:07:45 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-24-2004 01:00 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enki looks as if he's about to straddle the nanny-goat there!! As the All-father, that would make sense. Are those dolphins flying up to his shoulders? I think the stream flows UP to his shoulders rather than down from....
I will give this a read rather than a scan as soon as I have time.
I know that the information given through the Bock saga seems strange to process. The fact that we have someone alive today to tell it in it's original form, rather than modern (or relatively modern) interpretations of ancient writings makes it intrinsicly different from all other sources.

I am curious about the source (ancient and modern) of the Urantia material. Who was Melchisadik (?sp.) and who was the interpreter? Thanks again for your input here.

Oh, and I forgot...the "sap" as is described in the saga, would be the female counterpart...

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-24-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:08:27 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-24-2004 10:40 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absonite,
"Enki, lord of the hegal the Anunna-gods possess.
Nudimmud, the mighty one of the Ekur,
the strong one of An and Uras.
Nudimmud, the mighty one of the Ekur,
strong one of the Anunna,
whose noble house set up in the Abzu is
the mast of heaven and earth"

E---Sperm bank, All sperm knowledge=Oak Tree
N---North Star=means Knowledge
K---The middle Caste
I---The Beginning and the End(i)the P-- and the drop of semen

"I am the first among the rulers.
I am the father of all the lands.
I am the big brother of the gods,
the hegal is perfected in me."

H---The Center/Whole/Holy
E---Sperm bank (see above)
G---Giving/the Ground
E---
L---The Law People Make/The Flow Between Things

ANUNNA
A---The First People
N---North Star/Knowledge
U---means Original or Origin

NUNDIMMUD
N---See Above
U---"
N---
D---Day/Light
I---The Beginning and the End(i)the P-- and the drop of semen
M---The Moon=King and Queen together=two sides
U---
D---


[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-24-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:09:23 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-24-2004 10:47 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absonite, To add to that last post:
"My father, ruler above and below,
made my features blaze above and below.

My great brother, ruler of all the lands,
gathered all the me together,
placed the me in my hands.
From the Ekur, house of Enlil,
I passed on the arts and crafts to my Abzu, Eridu.

A---The First People
B---To Be
Z---The Flash Between Two People
U---Original or Origin

"Sumer, great Kur,
mada of what is above and below,
robed in enduring light,
settling the me upon the people
from sunrise to sunset,
your me are lofty me,
untouchable,
your heart is a maze,
inscrutable,
your life-giving womb,
the place where the gods give birth: like heaven
it cannot be touched.
It gives birth to kings who fasten the lasting diadem.
It gives birth to the high priests who put crown to head.
Your lord, the honored lord, sits with king An,
on the dais of An."

S---Sun and Mouth/All that originated from the Sun
U---Original or Origin
M---The Moon/King and Queen together/Two sides
E---Sperm bank/All Sperm Knowledge/Oak Tree
R---Feminine-Masculine/Yin-Yang

"The one who sets sail...
in the holy shrine,
the innin who induces copulation...
great flood-wave of the sea,
turbulent flood-wave,
the inundation of the sea...
who springs forth out of the sea-foam...
the innin of Sirara,
mother Nanse,
the sea in all its breadth,
Enki placed in charge of it.

I---Beginning and End (i) P-- and dot of sperm
N---North Star/means Knowledge


[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-24-2004).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:09:50 pm
Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 07-26-2004 12:22 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rock,
A few years ago Bob Sarmast did a lot of work on some of the translations of these Sumerian cylinder seals and what he came up with for Enki was..
En = Lord
Ki = Earth

and that basically was what Adam was when he founded Atlantis.


you seem to have a penchant for languages and etymology, maybe you should consider following a professional career in Linguistics. We need some good translators in these topics.


Annu Naki
has been translated as:
"Those who from heaven to Earth came.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:10:18 pm
rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 07-26-2004 01:44 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abs,
Thanks but no thanks...I am just trying to learn about the Bock saga and its unique view into the past. To tell you the truth, I am just learning about the letters, and my showing you the meaning of letters really has less bearing on the meaning of words than the sounds do. As I learn more I'll come forward with more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:10:57 pm
Anteros

Member
Member # 1984

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2004 04:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where oh where has Erick gone to???
I'd much rather listen to his thinly veiled intellectual superiority complex than put up with the rants of the crazy lady anymore!!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 479 | From: New England | Registered: May 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:11:27 pm
Helios

Member
Member # 2019

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2004 08:38 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I almost miss Erick myself! That was, at least, a substantive discussion (although he was wrong about everything) This current one seems to be wholy based on vanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 406 | From: Rhodes (an island near Cyprus) | Registered: Jun 2004   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:11:50 pm
cleasterwood

Member
Member # 1620

Member Rated:
   posted 08-18-2004 05:59 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 653 | From: FL US | Registered: Aug 2003   


Title: Re: Worst theories & books on Atlantis
Post by: Helios on March 13, 2008, 11:16:58 pm
Ah, the good old days, back when we debated passionately, took no prisoners, got and gave no quarter.

Will we ever uncover the truth about Atlantis, at the least, in our lifetimes?
 ;)

Thus concludes, this night's debate.