Atlantis Online
November 26, 2022, 12:31:37 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Did Humans Colonize the World by Boat?
Research suggests our ancestors traveled the oceans 70,000 years ago
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/20-did-humans-colonize-the-world-by-boat
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

The White Island: Antarctica

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The White Island: Antarctica  (Read 1611 times)
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« on: September 05, 2010, 01:32:13 pm »



"Ahura Mazda warns Yima, the first king of men, of the approach of a dire winter, which is to destroy every living creature by covering the land with a thick sheet of ice, and advises Yima to build a Vara, or an enclosure, to preserve the seeds of every kind of animal and plant." -- Zend-Avesta, Fargard II, 1000 B.C.

"On the northern shores of the Ocean of Milk there is an island of great splendour called by the name of White Island [Atala]. The men that inhabit that island have complexions as white as the rays of the Moon and that are devoted to Narayana. Worshippers of that foremost of all Beings, they are devoted to Him with their whole souls. They all enter that eternal and illustrious deity of a thousand rays. They are divested of senses. They do not subsist on any kind of food. Their eyes are winkless." -- Mahabharata, Book 12 (Santi Parva), SECTION CCCXXXVII, 8th century B.C.

"After this at a distance of ten days' journey there is another hill of salt and spring of water, and men dwell round it. Near this salt hill is a mountain named Atlas, which is small in circuit and rounded on every side; and so exceedingly lofty is it said to be, that it is not possible to see its summits, for clouds never leave them either in the summer or in the winter. This the natives say is the pillar of the heaven. After this mountain these men got their name, for they are called Atlantians; and it is said that they neither eat anything that has life nor have any dreams." -- Herodotus, historian, History, Book IV, 440 B.C.

"In the year 1193 after the birth of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the Aztec nation reached this land. These people, like the others who populated the country, departed from seven caves in a land called Aztlán. This name could mean 'Whiteness' or 'Place of the Herons.' Because of this the people were called Aztec which means 'People of Whiteness.'" -- Diego Duran, historian, 1581

"The account of this delightful country [Aztlan] given by Cueuhcoatl to the elder Montezuma, is as follows: 'Our fathers dwelt in that happy and prosperous place which they called Aztlan, which means 'whiteness.' In this place there is a great mountain in the middle of the water, which is called Culhuacan which means 'crooked mountain.'" -- John T. Short, historian, The North Americans of Antiquity, 1880

"The elder Montezuma said to Cortez, 'Our fathers dwelt in that happy and prosperous place which they called Aztlan, which means whiteness. ... In this place there is a great mountain in the middle of the water which is called Culhuacan, because it has the point somewhat turned over towards the bottom; and for this reason it is called Culhuacan, which means 'crooked mountain.' ... Here we have the same mountain in the midst of the water that Plato describes -- the same mountain to which all the legends of the most ancient races of Europe refer." -- Ignatius L. Donnelly, author, Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, 1882

"Do the Greeks, accused of borrowing a Hindu fiction (Atala) and inventing from it another (Atlantis), stand also accused of getting their geographical notions and the number seven from them?" -- Helena P. Blavatsky, theosophist, The Secret Doctrine, 1888

"... the four well-known native documents which have been preserved and which depict the wanderings of Montezuma's people, the Aztecs, from their original home to the valley of Mexico, agree in representing their point of departure as an island named Aztlan. Friar Duran translates this name as 'Place of Whiteness' which can be rendered as 'White land.'" -- Zelia Nuttall, anthropologist, The Island of Sacrificios, American Anthropologist, Volume 102, Issues 1-2, 1910

"The Vishnu Purana, the oldest of the Hindu puranas, speaks of Atala, the White Island, which is one of the seven islands (dwipas) belonging to Patala (the home of the Naga serpent deities)." -- Philip Gardiner, author, Gnosis, 2006
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 01:33:44 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thalacker
Full Member
***
Posts: 31



« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2010, 04:28:54 pm »

So you are saying the Aztecs visited Antarctica?
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2010, 07:52:38 pm »

Perhaps you'd like to read this article, showing how geologically, Antarctica cannot be Atlantis.  Are you a Graham Hancock fan Ostanes, because this debunks Hancock's theory of Antarctica being Atlantis.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/forgotten/antarctic.php
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2010, 08:56:23 pm »

So you are saying the Aztecs visited Antarctica?
I am saying the Aztecs came from Antarctica which they called Aztlan, the Hindus called Atala, and the Greeks called Atlantis.
Report Spam   Logged
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2010, 09:12:14 pm »

Perhaps you'd like to read this article, showing how geologically, Antarctica cannot be Atlantis.  Are you a Graham Hancock fan Ostanes, because this debunks Hancock's theory of Antarctica being Atlantis.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/forgotten/antarctic.php
Bad archaeology indeed!

Not sure what Graham Hancock has to do with the Vishnu Purana, The Mahabharata, Homer, Hellanicus of Lesbos, Herodotus, Solon, Dropides, Critias, Plato, Crantor, Proclus, Montezuma, and Newton.

But anyway, it seems this Graham Hancock fellow is more credible than Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews will ever be.

Quote
The problem is that it’s equally a geophysical impossibility for Antarctica to have become covered in ice as little as 12,500 years ago (as Hancock requires). It’s so simple to disprove, too: ice is laid down in annual layers that can be counted, just like tree rings. How many layers can be counted? Hundreds of thousands.
And that is absolutely meaningless.

"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al.,Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.

"First glance intuition is often very helpful in coming up with a good hypothesis to explain a given phenomenon, such as the hundreds of thousands of layers of ice found in places like Greenland and Antarctica. It seems down right intuitive that each layer found in these ice sheets should represent an annual cycle. After all, this seems to fit the uniformitarian paradigm so well. However, a closer inspection of the data seems to favor a much more recent and catastrophic model of ice sheet formation. Violent weather disturbances with large storms, a sudden cold snap, and high precipitation rates could very reasonably give rise to all the layers, dust bands, and isotope variations etc. that we find in the various ice sheets today." -- Sean D. Pitman, doctor, December 2006

Quote
Nevertheless, he feels free to ignore this – perhaps he believes that there is some other mechanism that produces these ice layers – and seizes on an idea known as ‘earth crustal displacement’ to explain not only how an ice-free Antarctic might have been possible in the geologically recent past but also how the European Ice Age was caused. The hypothesis suggests that the earth’s crust is poorly attached to the planet’s core and that, for reasons that are not fully understood, can suddenly slip, creating new locations for the poles. The weight of polar ice is one of the causes for these shifts. It almost goes without saying that orthodox geology does not accept this idea. Whilst we now know that the tectonic plates making up the earth’s crust do move, they do so independently of each other, very slowly and never in the catastrophic way suggested by the crustal displacement hypothesis.
Hancock has discovered references in the work of Charles Hapgood, who proposed the crustal displacement hypothesis in the 1950s, to a series of maps that appear to depict an ice-free Antarctic. These maps date from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries and, if the claim that they accurately depict an Antarctic continent – ice-free or otherwise – is correct, they are remarkable, as Antarctica was not discovered until the 1820s. It is therefore important to examine the claims in detail.
"I find your [Charles Hapgood] arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, May 8th 1953

"I think that the idea of Mr. Hapgood has to be taken quite seriously." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, January 14th 1954

"Dear Professor Hapgood, Your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis World Map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed. The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land Antarctica, and the Palmer Peninsula, is reasonable. We find this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map. The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949. This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap. The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick. We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed date of geographical knowledge in 1513." -- Harold Z. Ohlmeyer, Lieutenant Colonel USAF, 1966

Quote
There are insurmountable problems with accepting any of the sixteenth- to eighteenth-century maps as evidence that Antarctica was free from ice at a time when humans might have mapped it. The greatest problems relate to relative sea levels and to the current isostatic depression of the landmass.
That is not a logical or scientific argument.

It's the equivalent of saying isostatic rebound proves Antarctica is Atlantis.

Quote
However, there is a more important source of information about the age of the ice cap that completely refutes Hancock’s assertion that ‘crustal displacement’ (an hypothesis first propounded by Hapgood) led to the glaciation of Antarctica as recently as 12,500 BP. This is the existence of numerous ice cores from the Antarctic that show the continent to have been covered by a fully developed ice cap between 40,000 to 6,000 BP. Between 21,000 and 16,000 BP there was a maximum development of the ice cap, corresponding to the height of the Devensian glaciation in Britain.
Again.  Meaningless.

"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al.,Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.

"First glance intuition is often very helpful in coming up with a good hypothesis to explain a given phenomenon, such as the hundreds of thousands of layers of ice found in places like Greenland and Antarctica. It seems down right intuitive that each layer found in these ice sheets should represent an annual cycle. After all, this seems to fit the uniformitarian paradigm so well. However, a closer inspection of the data seems to favor a much more recent and catastrophic model of ice sheet formation. Violent weather disturbances with large storms, a sudden cold snap, and high precipitation rates could very reasonably give rise to all the layers, dust bands, and isotope variations etc. that we find in the various ice sheets today." -- Sean D. Pitman, doctor, December 2006

Quote
Indeed, it is evident that Antarctica was last completely ice-free over 14,000,000 years ago, long before the evolution of the genus Homo, let alone modern humans.
A Darwinian assumption that cannot be justified by evidence.

"The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon [Havasupai Canyon, Arizona] upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." -- Samuel Hubbard, paleoanthropologist, November 1924

"In Pershing County, Nevada, a shoe print was found in Triassic limestone, strata indicative of 400 million years, in which the fossilized evidence clearly revealed finely wrought double-stitching in the seams." -- Brad Steiger, author, October 1978

"...the suggestion of sentient humans walking about writing on North American walls during the Carboniferous Era, 250 million years ago, simply subjects the orthodox thinking apparatus to more shocks than may be comfortably sustained." -- Brad Steiger, author, October 1978

"Again on 1st June 1968, William Meister was climbing a cliff searching for trilobite fossils in the Wheeler Formation in Utah. He broke off a 5 cm thick lump of rock that split open in his hand revealing trilobite fossils embedded in the heel of a sandal print that had toe impressions poking over the edge. He called in Dr. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who found several more sandal prints in the shaly limestone, and the footprints of barefoot children, one with a trilobite in the instep." -- Barry Setterfield, geologist, June 1998

"Therefore our first charge against Darwin is this: He says there were no human beings millions of years ago. That is not a fact. We now see human beings existing along with all other species, and it should be concluded that this situation always existed. Human life has always been there. Darwin cannot prove that there was no human life millions of years ago." -- Srila Prabhupada, guru, 1999

"... we could also consider the shoe print, you know, that was found near Antelope Springs Utah by William Meister. And he found that in the year 1968. He was a researcher, a collector of fossils, and he was breaking open pieces of slate rock at this place Antelope Springs and when he broke open one piece of rock he found a shoe print. You know, my coauthor Richard Thompson went to visit William Meister in Utah and he was able to see this specimen, he was able to take photographs of it, and we did a computer analysis, and we showed that the shape of this impression in the rock is exactly like that of a shoe print. And if you look at your shoe, at the bottom of your shoe, you can usually see where your heel is worn down in a certain place, so this print had that same feature in it and also crushed in the middle of the foot print was the fossil of a trilobyte. Now a trilobyte is a shellfish that existed about 500 million years ago in what's called the Cambrian Period." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 09:16:48 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
Stacy Dohm
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4566



« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2010, 02:54:59 pm »

This is a great thread on Atlantis in Antarctica.  Welcome to the forum, Ostanes.

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,500.0.html
Report Spam   Logged

"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream." - Edgar Allen Poe
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2010, 04:50:36 pm »

I mistakenly posted this in the wrong thread, previously.

Gondwanaland breakup (160–23 Ma)
The cooling of Antarctica occurred stepwise, as the continental spread changed the oceanic currents from longitudinal equator-to-pole temperature-equalizing currents to latitudinal currents that preserved and accentuated latitude temperature differences.
Africa separated from Antarctica around 160 Ma, followed by the Indian subcontinent, in the early Cretaceous (about 125 Ma). About 65 Ma, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a tropical to subtropical climate, complete with a marsupial fauna. About 40 Ma Australia-New Guinea separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. During the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago, CO2 levels have been found to be about 760 ppm[28] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm. Around 23 Ma, the Drake Passage opened between Antarctica and South America, resulting in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that completely isolated the continent. Models of the changes suggest that declining CO2 levels became more important.[29] The ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 Ma, the continent has been mostly covered with ice,[30] with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Cold Fusion
Full Member
***
Posts: 12



« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2010, 05:58:02 pm »

Of course, the age of the ice sheets is not uniform, with the ice of Lower Antarctica being somewhat younger.  If I were looking fo ruins under the ice, I would start there.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2010, 06:26:34 pm »

How much younger would the ice of Lower Antarctica be?  The ice has covered that continent for 15 million years.  Atlantis sank 11,500 years ago.  Are you saying that even accounting for storms and so forth, the 15 million year date given by scientists is wrong by 14,988,500 years?  I don't necessarily mean you yourself, Cold Fusion, I'm talking to anyone, but answering to Ostanes post as well as yours.

The second thing to mention I suppose, is the fact that Antarctica has not sunk beneath the ocean, but is covered in ice. 

In an earlier post, I referenced a site called Bad Archaeology.  For those of you who haven't linked through, here's a bit of info about the site.  Real archaeologists have a right to their say also, as well as the authors of books who are not trained in the field.  I think it's up to each individual to check all the facts, before accepting anything they read, as the absolute truth. 

Bad Archaeology
Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.
In short, we are Angry Archaeologists.


Real Archaeology
Archaeology is extraordinarily diverse. From the field technicians knee deep in mud in a Hebridean winter to the Classical specialist examining frescoes on a wall at Pompeii, from the geneticist tracing ancient bovine DNA to the linguist refining our understanding of Maya inscriptions, the range of specialisms and viewpoints is enormous. Nevertheless, there are commonalities of approach and boundaries to that diversity, united by what may be termed ‘the scientific method’.
These boundaries are best explained by showing what archaeology is not. Someone who uses explanations that involve unknown civilisations, extraterrestrial contact, the inerrancy of religious texts or the operation of paranormal powers, belongs to a very different intellectual tradition from mainstream archaeology. The orthodoxy – itself a mass of contradictory, competing and often abstruse arguments – generally relegates these other investigators to a ‘fringe’ or ‘cult’ status, as a result their claims go unchallenged.
The aim of this site is to explore the main strands of thought within the ‘fringe’, to explain how and why they are different from orthodox archaeology. Although much of what we have written is aimed at debunking the misconceptions and distortions of the past promoted by fringe writers, we are always open to the idea that they may be able to tell orthodox archaeology something of value. The fringe is interesting and entertaining in its own right; this site can only scratch the surface of such a huge area of human endeavour but we will continue to dig away, exposing Bad Archaeology wherever we find it.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2010, 06:42:08 pm »

I mistakenly posted this in the wrong thread, previously.

Gondwanaland breakup (160–23 Ma)
The cooling of Antarctica occurred stepwise, as the continental spread changed the oceanic currents from longitudinal equator-to-pole temperature-equalizing currents to latitudinal currents that preserved and accentuated latitude temperature differences.
Africa separated from Antarctica around 160 Ma, followed by the Indian subcontinent, in the early Cretaceous (about 125 Ma). About 65 Ma, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a tropical to subtropical climate, complete with a marsupial fauna. About 40 Ma Australia-New Guinea separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. During the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago, CO2 levels have been found to be about 760 ppm[28] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm. Around 23 Ma, the Drake Passage opened between Antarctica and South America, resulting in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that completely isolated the continent. Models of the changes suggest that declining CO2 levels became more important.[29] The ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent. Since about 15 Ma, the continent has been mostly covered with ice,[30] with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present extension around 6 Ma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
Well Wikipedia says it so it must be true... Roll Eyes

Unfortunately Wikipedia is in denial of the philosophy of Plato.

And the peer-reviewed literature says assumption is bad science.

"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al., Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.
Report Spam   Logged
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2010, 06:46:16 pm »

The ice has covered that continent for 15 million years.
You have absolutely no evidence of that.

"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al., Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.

Quote
Atlantis sank 11,500 years ago.  Are you saying that even accounting for storms and so forth, the 15 million year date given by scientists is wrong by 14,988,500 years?
As wrong as they can possibly be.

Quote
The second thing to mention I suppose, is the fact that Antarctica has not sunk beneath the ocean, but is covered in ice. 
The last time I checked ice is part of the ocean.

"Ahura Mazda warns Yima, the first king of men, of the approach of a dire winter, which is to destroy every living creature by covering the land with a thick sheet of ice, and advises Yima to build a Vara, or an enclosure, to preserve the seeds of every kind of animal and plant." -- Zend-Avesta, Fargard II, 1000 B.C.

Quote
In an earlier post, I referenced a site called Bad Archaeology.  For those of you who haven't linked through, here's a bit of info about the site.  Real archaeologists have a right to their say also, as well as the authors of books who are not trained in the field.  I think it's up to each individual to check all the facts, before accepting anything they read, as the absolute truth. 

Bad Archaeology
Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.
In short, we are Angry Archaeologists.
Bad archaeology indeed!

Quote
Real Archaeology
Archaeology is extraordinarily diverse. From the field technicians knee deep in mud in a Hebridean winter to the Classical specialist examining frescoes on a wall at Pompeii, from the geneticist tracing ancient bovine DNA to the linguist refining our understanding of Maya inscriptions, the range of specialisms and viewpoints is enormous. Nevertheless, there are commonalities of approach and boundaries to that diversity, united by what may be termed ‘the scientific method’.
These boundaries are best explained by showing what archaeology is not. Someone who uses explanations that involve unknown civilisations, extraterrestrial contact, the inerrancy of religious texts or the operation of paranormal powers, belongs to a very different intellectual tradition from mainstream archaeology. The orthodoxy – itself a mass of contradictory, competing and often abstruse arguments – generally relegates these other investigators to a ‘fringe’ or ‘cult’ status, as a result their claims go unchallenged.
The aim of this site is to explore the main strands of thought within the ‘fringe’, to explain how and why they are different from orthodox archaeology. Although much of what we have written is aimed at debunking the misconceptions and distortions of the past promoted by fringe writers, we are always open to the idea that they may be able to tell orthodox archaeology something of value. The fringe is interesting and entertaining in its own right; this site can only scratch the surface of such a huge area of human endeavour but we will continue to dig away, exposing Bad Archaeology wherever we find it.
Fringe pseudoscience imo.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2010, 06:52:49 pm »

Ostanes
Quote
"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al., Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.

Ok.  Lets say there's an error margin of half.  50%  That means Antarctica would have been covered in ice for seven and a half million years instead of 15 million.  Even if we give an error margin of 75%, it would mean Antarctica has been covered in ice for 3,750,000 years. 

To assume this margin error, we have to assume that all the scientists who have worked on studying the Antarctic, are ALL 50-75% in error.  I don't think so. 

However, the point is, Atlantis supposedly sunk 11,500 years ago.  Antarctic is not sunk and was covered in ice in the time frame Plato talks about.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2010, 06:57:31 pm »

Me
Quote
The second thing to mention I suppose, is the fact that Antarctica has not sunk beneath the ocean, but is covered in ice.


Ostanes

The last time I checked ice is part of the ocean.

The last time I checked, Plato said
Quote
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

He did not say she sunk beneath the ice or became frozen over.  He also said shoals of mud, not chunks of ice made the sea impassable.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2010, 08:30:25 pm »

Ostanes
Quote
"Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year." -- Alley, R.B. et al., Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Number C12, Pages 26, 367–26, 381, 1997.

Ok.  Lets say there's an error margin of half.  50%  That means Antarctica would have been covered in ice for seven and a half million years instead of 15 million.  Even if we give an error margin of 75%, it would mean Antarctica has been covered in ice for 3,750,000 years. 

To assume this margin error, we have to assume that all the scientists who have worked on studying the Antarctic, are ALL 50-75% in error.  I don't think so. 

However, the point is, Atlantis supposedly sunk 11,500 years ago.  Antarctic is not sunk and was covered in ice in the time frame Plato talks about.
Let's suppose all the Antarctic ice sheet was laid down catastrophically all at once in agreement with the historical record.

"First glance intuition is often very helpful in coming up with a good hypothesis to explain a given phenomenon, such as the hundreds of thousands of layers of ice found in places like Greenland and Antarctica. It seems down right intuitive that each layer found in these ice sheets should represent an annual cycle. After all, this seems to fit the uniformitarian paradigm so well. However, a closer inspection of the data seems to favor a much more recent and catastrophic model of ice sheet formation. Violent weather disturbances with large storms, a sudden cold snap, and high precipitation rates could very reasonably give rise to all the layers, dust bands, and isotope variations etc. that we find in the various ice sheets today." -- Sean D. Pitman, doctor, December 2006
Report Spam   Logged
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2010, 08:32:19 pm »

Me
Quote
The second thing to mention I suppose, is the fact that Antarctica has not sunk beneath the ocean, but is covered in ice.


Ostanes

The last time I checked ice is part of the ocean.

The last time I checked, Plato said
Quote
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

He did not say she sunk beneath the ice or became frozen over.  He also said shoals of mud, not chunks of ice made the sea impassable.
So?  Plato also didn't say water can't freeze and turn into ice.

Can you highlight the exact lines in the Timaeus or Critias where Plato says water cannot freeze and turn into ice?

Anyway, since when do you believe Plato?

"Ahura Mazda warns Yima, the first king of men, of the approach of a dire winter, which is to destroy every living creature by covering the land with a thick sheet of ice, and advises Yima to build a Vara, or an enclosure, to preserve the seeds of every kind of animal and plant." -- Zend-Avesta, Fargard II, 1000 B.C.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 08:34:06 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy