Atlantis Online
October 27, 2020, 06:57:04 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Site provides evidence for ancient comet explosion
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/173177.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Plato's Atlantis My Theory


Pages: 1 ... 131 132 133 134 135 136 [137] 138 139 140 141   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Plato's Atlantis My Theory  (Read 55857 times)
Paulo Riven
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #2040 on: April 28, 2010, 10:02:25 pm »

First account of Plato’s preservation of Atlantis; Timaeus / Benjamin Jowett translation.

Egyptian Priest to Solon;
“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. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits;

-“WHICH ARE BY YOU CALLED the pillars of Hercules”
Egyptian priest verifies to Solon that they are in fact talking about the Straite of Gibraltar that both men knew by name ca.570-564.bC.
- no need to mistake the bosphorous straites or entrance to the Euxine Sea, as it was known back then. Clearly Plato would have written the word Euxine.

- SEA WITHIN IS ONLY A HARBOR compared to the Atlantic Ocean or True Sea.
-the Mediterranean Sea is classified as a harbor. Even if the smaller Euxine was combined with the Caspian, it would still amount to being near the Mediterranean Sea in size, and clearly not a True Ocean or Sea like the Atlantic.

Atlantis subjected the lands INSIDE of the straites up to Italy and Egypt.
-   Impossible for the Black Sea to relate to this statement, especially with Greece in the way.
-   Atlantis Island had to be near enough to the Mediterranean to maintain that control, which they could not have done from the Americas or Indonesia.
-   Identifies westward location for Atlantis and before the straites of Gibraltar.
-   
Atlantis attacked the whole of Europe [after Italy] and Asia.[Egypt/Levant/Anatolia].
-   Clearly Black Sea Atlantis theories could not be attacking themselves and this also identifies the westward location of Atlantis in the Atlantic.

Nothing complicated about the above, anything else is merely denial or pure ignorance.


Second account of Plato’s preservation of Atlantis; Critias / Benjamin Jowett translation.

Looking towards the sea, but in the center of the whole island, there was a plain, which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the center of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side.

Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, enclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another; there were two of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference equidistant every way from the center, so that no man could get to the island,

And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this,

Leaving the palace and passing out across the three you came to a wall which began at the sea and went all round: this was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour, and enclosed the whole, the ends meeting at the mouth of the channel which led to the sea.

Cleito’s Hill Enclosed;

Cleito’s [sloping] Hill was on the central island and surrounded by concentric circles.
The Canal was 50 stadia from the Sea where the Sea Wall began.
Stade or Stadia = 605ft [or 607]
50 x 605 = 30,025 ft / 5280ft = 5.73 miles.

Josephine Seamount;
-   sloping hill
-   concentric circle surrounding sloping hill
-   sea wall
-   circle approx 10 miles from sea wall
-   475 miles before the Straites of Gibraltar precisely as Plato preserved.
-   In the Atlantic Ocean
-   Able to Control the Mediterranean up to Italy and Egypt
-   






As for the Hippocrates who deny the existence of Atlantis.
What is it that they do believe?
They BELIEVE that Plato wrote an Allegorical lesson.
Prove Plato existed.
You can’t do that either can you!
Obviously you don’t know what to believe, do you?
What’s that? You have to accept it for face value?

I may be the last person standing before 6.9 billion people, but I will always maintain Atlantis is a real and factual account preserved by Plato from Solon from Egypt.

I don’t underestimate their intelligence.
To Know Is Immortal.




Report Spam   Logged

[R]...Riven The Seer and Royal Bloodline to Atlantis...[R]

New! Tribes of Atlantis Academy of Atlantis Research Forums; http://tribesofatlantis.freeforum.ca/index.php
Website; https://sites.google.com/site/tribesofatlantis/
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2041 on: April 29, 2010, 08:37:01 am »

I see you are starting to understand the conundrum of making Plato's story fit any particular location.  You have figured out quite quickly that Atlantis could not be in the Black Sea due to a variety of reasons.    Something I pointed out quite a while ago. It only makes sense for the part of the story where Plato talks about a war, because it's close enough that there COULD be a fight between the two.  But there was no culture in the times Plato talks about, that was powerful enough to overtake all of Europe, Egypt and Asia "at a blow".  Not in the Black Sea and not in the Atlantic. You can only make a few points fit each theory, but you can't make all the points fit any one theory.  Especially since there was [b]NO CULTURE IN THAT TIME FRAME WITH THE MEANS TO OVERTHROW ALL THE AREAS PLATO SAYS IT  DID.[/b]   So it doesn't matter if you bold the words, or capitalize them or color them green!!  Atlantis is just a story.  (I've bolded the words, capitalized them and colored them green!!  It's just a story).  You don't have to get into any details about whether a word here means the same thing as over there, or if there were red, white and black stones here, and mountains over there.  It doesn't all fit in one place at one time. 

Riven
Quote
Prove Plato existed.
You can’t do that either can you!

Neither can you, but you totally believe in Atlantis.

Riven
Quote
I may be the last person standing before 6.9 billion people, but I will always maintain Atlantis is a real and factual account preserved by Plato from Solon from Egypt.

I don’t underestimate their intelligence.

I don't underestimate THEIR intelligence either.

By the way, I can find no information that says the Josephine Sea Mount was ever above water.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 11:29:47 am by Qoais » 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."
Paulo Riven
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #2042 on: April 29, 2010, 03:24:32 pm »

Quote
You have figured out quite quickly that Atlantis could not be in the Black Sea due to a variety of reasons.Something I pointed out quite a while ago.

I guess that is why you used up the last few pages of your thread to post all that garbage about the black sea atlantis website instead of a simple intro and a weblink.

Quote
no culture in that time frame with the means to overthrow all the areas plato says it did

Wrong. Everything is according to their own timeframe. What we may think and what actualy happened are two differences. In Critias someone translated the size of the greek state as being 20,000 people based on the word "myriads" which means 10,000. Just because the priest said the whole of europe and asia was attacked, could simply mean at their major regions of control. Even if an invader of 100,000 people attacked tribes of 20,000 people,it would appear as a numerous host.

We know at the end of the 2nd dynasty Egypt that khasakemy,if I recall,defeated a northern rebellion of 47,000 people.

Quote
When Khasekhemwy ascended the throne he had to put down a Northern rebellion. The rebels reached as far south as Nekheb and Nekhen, the ancient southern capital. His victory is described on two statues. Both portraits show the king with northerners cringing at his feet wearing the White Crown symbolizing the South. It is recorded that there were more than 47,000 casualties.


Besides,your straying from what the Atlantis story told you. If they controlled Europe upto Italy and Africa upto Egypt, then obviously they had the means without even having to mention the size of the army portrayed. Although the actual truth is they controlled the entire mediterranean areas including greece,asia and egypt.

Quote
By the way, I can find no information that says the Josephine Sea Mount was ever above water.

Easy to say right Qoais just like it is to say Atlantis didn't exist?

And you studied Atlantis for how long?

I gather you never studied sea or ocean levels?

All those seamounts,Ormonde,Amperes,Josephine are reachable from 30 - 140 meters below the ocean surface to a maximum depth of 5000m on the Abyssal plain.

They would all have been above water for your info.

Secondly, is it possible that since the island of Atlantis broke apart, that a large chunk sank gracefully to the bottom and became a seamount?



« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 03:26:10 pm by Paulo Riven » Report Spam   Logged

[R]...Riven The Seer and Royal Bloodline to Atlantis...[R]

New! Tribes of Atlantis Academy of Atlantis Research Forums; http://tribesofatlantis.freeforum.ca/index.php
Website; https://sites.google.com/site/tribesofatlantis/
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2043 on: April 29, 2010, 07:59:16 pm »

I said:
You have figured out quite quickly that Atlantis could not be in the Black Sea due to a variety of reasons.Something I pointed out quite a while ago.

You said:
Quote
I guess that is why you used up the last few pages of your thread to post all that garbage about the black sea atlantis website instead of a simple intro and a weblink.

Yes, that is correct. I have posted the article about the Black Sea because I find people don't follow the link.  Once they're here, they'll read the article.  Then I have the information all in one place. 

I said:
no culture in that time frame with the means to overthrow all the areas plato says it did

You said:
Quote
Wrong. Everything is according to their own timeframe. What we may think and what actualy happened are two differences

Wrong.  We do know the history very well.  All you have to do is research it a bit.  There was no such war where a single culture tried to overthrow the Greeks, the Asians and the Egyptians all at once.  Whether it was a power base or a whole country, it didn't happen.  There have been many wars, and Egypt no less than any other place, but NOT a war where there was a POWER that could overtake all three countries at once.  Doesn't matter what the size of the Greek State was.  There was no one ELSE with that kind of power.

Khasekhemwy (d. 2686 BC; sometimes spelled Khasekhemui) was the fifth and final king of the Second dynasty of Egypt. Little is known of Khasekhemwy, other than that he led several significant military campaigns and built several monuments, still extant, mentioning war against the Northerners. His name means "The Two Powerful Ones Appear."[1]

We are talking 8400 years into a different time frame.  9000 years before Solon is not 2686 BC. 

You said:

Quote
Besides,your straying from what the Atlantis story told you. If they controlled Europe upto Italy and Africa upto Egypt, then obviously they had the means without even having to mention the size of the army portrayed. Although the actual truth is they controlled the entire mediterranean areas including greece,asia and egypt

You're making this all up.  Plato never said any such thing and everyone knows it.  Including you. 

You said:

Quote
Easy to say right Qoais just like it is to say Atlantis didn't exist

Yes Paulo, because I research stuff.  Once I know the truth of a thing, it IS easy to say.   I SAID, I couldn't find anywhere where there is scientific proof that Josephine Sea Mount was ever above water.  Have you?  If you have, let's have a link to the information.

You said:

Quote
And you studied Atlantis for how long?

Irrelevant.  A person could spend one day, just checking out the pertinent points, and come to the same conclusion.  I can'ts spend all day researching, so the subjects I delved into, were many and varied.  It did all start with me wanting to know what make the Ark of the Covenant work, and I'm still searching for that answer. 

You said:
Quote
They would all have been above water for your info.
 

Prove it.  And even if it had been above water at one time, how does that make it Atlantis? 

Quote
Secondly, is it possible that since the island of Atlantis broke apart, that a large chunk sank gracefully to the bottom and became a seamount?
First of all, Plato did not say that Atlantis broke apart.  He said it sank.  Edgar Cayce said it broke apart.  If you can find where Plato said it broke apart, please quote it here.


 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 08:00:11 pm by Qoais » 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 #2044 on: April 29, 2010, 08:33:08 pm »

Actually Paulo, for anyone who knows even a little about the history of the countries around the Med., this sentence in the Timaeus would be your first clue:

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

Greece did not exist 9000 years before Solon.  They were still living the hunter, gatherer lifestyle and hadn't been formed into a civilization yet. 

You can't twist and torture what Plato said, you can't say he said one thing, but must have meant something else. 
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 #2045 on: May 05, 2010, 10:27:43 am »

I know for a lot of people, the story of Atlatis is like having a treasure map and they hunt for where X marks the spot.  However, if one researches the pertinent points in Plato's Atlantis, they find that the facts don't match to what he says.  Everyone can be angry with me because I point this out, but it doesn't change the facts.  The future is not going to show any more information regarding Atlantis, than we know already.  We already have all the technology we need.  That isn't the point.  We need to check out what Plato said.  Some people think that what Plato said isn't important.  Then why go looking for Atlantis at all?  Why spend thousands and thousands of dollars looking for something if it isn't important?  Are there two Atlantis'?  Plato's and Edgar Cayce's?  Perhaps Greg Little doesn't feel what Plato said is important, because it has nothing to do with Edgar Cayce's Atlantis, the one Greg is looking for.   But this thread, is about Plato's Atlantis and how it was just a story made by a very clever man, for a birthday celebration. 

To begin with, as I said earlier, the line in the Timaeus that says "As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago", is the first clue that this is a story.  Plato had stated earlier that in childhood one of the great events was the story telling.  They could win prizes for the best story.  He was a pro at it.  He even says it's made up, but for the celebration, he would apply it to real life.

I have pointed out before that Plato states "years" for the measurement of time in his story.  He states it at least three times, so I don't see where this can be changed, but even if it was changed, the story would still not stand.

Researching the facts, as set out in the story, we find that the technology that he talks about, wasn't invented yet.  Orderly civilizations were not regulated yet.  There were no organized armies or navies yet.  There weren't any large sailing vessels yet.  Territories and City States had not been organized yet.  The time line for the  existence of Atlantis is set during the ice age.  What civilization existed at that time with the technology described by Plato?  Atlantis supposedly sunk 1600 years before the end of the ice age. 

I realize science has it's faults, but as I've said before, not all the scientists in all the disciplines can be totally wrong.  There is no evidence of any culture that existed during the ice age, that had ocean going vessels, had armies and navies, and mounted an expedition against the peoples of the Mediterranean Sea. 





« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 10:32:58 am by Qoais » 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."
Greg Little
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 157


« Reply #2046 on: May 05, 2010, 03:44:23 pm »

Q: There is nothing wrong with thinking Atlantis didn't and/or could not have existed. You are in good company with the idea. But there is good company on the other side, too.  It's a definite possibility it didn't exist. But others might disagree or maybe just find it so intriguing that they want to look... and there's probably nothing wrong with that either. At least as long as they aren't somehow causing others suffering. And that last sentence comes from my beliefs about what's right and wrong.

You are right that current mainstream archaeological thought asserts the story couldn't be true. That's OK with a lot of us. It's OK with me. Science is a method that plods along. Things and "facts" change and progress.

As for Cayce's Atlantis and Plato's, they are one and the same--if they exist. I'm ok with thinking Cayce might have been right or wrong. The difference is that I know that there simply hasn't been enough exploration. So why do we spend thousands of dollars? It's our dollars, and we want to do it. The real fundamental difference is that I don't see what I'm involved with as a debate or putting up a theory. It's just a sort of adventure looking for something really intriguing---following up on one of the world's greatest "stories." It touches people at a deep level. So we do some exploration and tell others what we have found. In the past few years a bunch of tv documentary makers wanted to tag along. Sure, they and we like Cayce's story and I believe there is a lot of truth in it. But he might be wrong, and if so, I'll still be Ok with it. But there isn't much to really debate in it. It is what it is.

I don't think that all that many people are angry because you point out what you believe. There is nothing wrong with having that belief. It's just that there are others who disagree. We can simply agree to disagree...and I'm good with that.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2047 on: May 05, 2010, 07:12:43 pm »

Greg - I was angry and offended because in my mind, you intimated I was a liar, even after I explained to you that I had no special motive for posting the article about Cayce.  I guess I'm from the old school where your word is your bond, and I had no reason to lie.  Then you tried to make out that I was using some sort of simplistic, "tactic" that someone with a mere high school education would use, and I was again offended because I had no idea what it was I was supposed to be doing, using this "tactic".  I felt you talked down to me and tried to  cast aspersions on my character, when all along I thought we were discussing the facts of the matter of Atlantis.  I felt you owed me an apology for the personal attacks.  I am writing this here because I don't want there to be any doubt or misconceptions later on.

I want to thank you for your post and would like to say here and now, that if you feel I offended you in some way, please know that it was not intentional at all.  I am happy that you have explained your position regarding Atlantis, and that you are ok with it being true or not.  I am also ok with it, which is what I had been trying to explain before.  I found the scientific research did not uphold the story, but it was neither here nor there with me.  My world didn't come to an end.  It's still a fascinating subject, and I realize there are good people on both sides of the argument. Maybe someday science will discover there was a culture that existed during the ice age that traveled the oceans skimming over the ice on some type of wind driven ship or whatever, but so far no cave paintings of such a device Smiley

I think it's wonderful that you can do the explorations especially as a man and wife team.  Talk about quality time!! 

I wish you the best of luck and hope you have found something that will change the history books.

If you find The Phaiakian ships‎ I will be the first to kiss your butt in front of the post office Grin

 

 

 

 

« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 11:16:41 pm by Qoais » 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 #2048 on: May 05, 2010, 11:45:22 pm »

Regarding the Time Line of Happenings and Events:

I have said a number of times, that I don't agree with the dates that have been given for certain events, one of which, was the building of the pyramids.  Although I always thought the pyramids were older than the time line given, it's possible that also is wrong, and that they are actually a lot YOUNGER.  If they are, it would certainly give us more material to work with, in figuring out how they were built since the battle still rages regarding the ramp theory.

Here is an excerpt from a book by an author who holds a Masters Degree in Early Modern History:

In The Pyramid Age, Northern Irish historian Emmet Sweeney provides evidence suggesting the pyramids were not built around 2350 BC, as is currently thought, but only around 800 BC.

SweeneyÂ’s book argues that the dating of ancient history is often much more tenuous than most people realise, and that many of the puzzles and mysteries which confuse historians and archaeologists are solved as soon as the chronology is adjusted.

He concedes his conclusions are revolutionary but says they are in line with a growing number of academics who are prepared to acknowledge that there may be something radically wrong with ancient chronology. Wolfgang Helck, Germany’s foremost Egyptologist, recently admitted that work on chronology “has clearly arrived at a crisis.”

Sweeney is adamant the pyramids could not have been built 4,000 years ago. “The pyramids were partly constructed of hard granite and display in their design a knowledge of Pythagorean geometry,” he points out.

Yet in 2350 BC, the Egyptians only had copper and flint tools and such principles of mathematics had yet to be formulated. But modern scientists and engineers have demonstrated, repeatedly, that granite, basalt and diorite – all materials used by the pyramid-builders - can only be cut using carbon-steel tools.

“This mystery has led to all sorts of weird and wonderful theorising – not least the idea that the pyramids were built by aliens or Atlanteans.

“But revise the date of the pyramids’ construction to around 800 BC, when steel tools were available and more sophisticated principles of geometry were widely understood, and the mystery is solved.”

Sweeney points out that the presently accepted chronology of Egypt is not based on science, but on venerated literary tradition. This chronology had already been established, in its present form, by the third century BC, when Jewish historians, utilizing the “History of Egypt” by the Hellenistic author Manetho, sought to “tie in” Egypt’s history with that of the Bible. These efforts led to the equation of Menes, the first pharaoh, with Adam, the first man; and the consequential dating of the First Dynasty to around 4000 BC. The rest of Egyptian history, as outlined by Manetho, was made to fall in behind this starting-point.

The chronology of Egypt, as outlined by these early scholars, was to become the traditional means of dating Egypt’s past, and had already, by the 19th century, become so entrenched, that subsequent discoveries were unable to uproot it. As an illustration of this, Sweeney reminds us how Napoleon in 1798, before the Battle of the Pyramids, pointed to the Great Pyramid and told his men that “forty centuries look down on you.” Napoleon therefore placed the building of the monument around 2200 BC – within little more than a century of the date still found in the textbooks. Yet Napoleon’s speech was made over twenty years before Champollion had succeeded in deciphering the hieroglyphics and establishing the science of Egyptology!

It is quite evident that Napoleon’s estimate of the Pyramid’s age was based on the “traditional” chronology; yet it is equally evident that the dates still found in the textbooks are based on the same system.

SweeneyÂ’s work may prove to have far-reaching consequences for biblical scholarship.

He insists the main reason why Egyptian history appeared to be silent about the great events described so vividly in the Bible, such as the story of Joseph (of the many-colored coat) and the Exodus, is that EgyptÂ’s chronology is out of sync with regard to that of the Bible.

As a striking example of this, he shows how Hatshepsut, the female monarch who ruled as a “pharaoh” during the time of the mighty 18th Dynasty, was actually the legendary Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon in Jerusalem. “The connection between Hatshepsut and Solomon is in many ways obvious,” says Sweeney, “but was never made because in the textbooks Hatshepsut and Solomon are placed many centuries apart.”

http://www.algora.com/140/book/details.html

I haven't read this book or checked any facts, but it certainly sounds interesting.  No doubt it will be debunked fairly quickly.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 12:27:42 am by Qoais » 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."
Enigcom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 139


Eyes that saw...Ancient Past


« Reply #2049 on: May 06, 2010, 07:46:21 am »

I like your theory. It shows me you are thinking and reaching for the Truth. Please continue your search. It sounds plausible to me.

Orion von Koch
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2050 on: May 06, 2010, 12:36:39 pm »

I've come a long way baby!!

When looking back over the last 3 years, I laugh at myself for being so nieve about so many things.  It was a fun trip for me, the learning in so many different subjects, but I must have been a pain in the butt for a few others!  I think it's a good thing that my learning was done with the computer and not in a real classroom, otherwise I would have totally embarrassed myself any number of times.  Some people were really hard on me for what I proposed at times, and that's a good thing because it makes a person toe the line and do proper research.  It's one thing to read a book published by someone else, but it's always best to check the facts for yourself even if you enjoy the book. 

Critics and debunkers are necessary evils, although in reality, they aren't "evil" (unless they are deliberately mean and cruel).  They are what basically keeps the crap from the crapolla and that is definitely a good thing.  Call it quality control.  Critics and skeptics keep the searcher/student sharp and on the ball.  Otherwise, we'd believe a lot of crap that isn't true. 

It's kind of like being made to take exams to see how much you've learned. Exams are not a bad thing.  For me, I'd certainly like to know that the guy who is going to give me surgery, actually passed the exams to show he knows what he's doing and wasn't just sitting in class, picking his nose Cheesy

There was recently an item in the news, telling about a student who had finished high school and then sued the School Board because he didn't know how to read.  In this new system of not having to write exams, but only having to be present in class, there is no quality control.  I'm sure that over 12 years of schooling, he had different teachers, so he can not blame any one person for his failure to learn, other than himself.  But he's sueing the School Board for his lack of learning.  If it is the School Board's fault that he didn't learn, then why aren't ALL the students he went to school with sueing the School Board as well?  If it's the School Board's fault that he can't read, then none of his classmates must be able to read either.  Therefore, there should be a class action law suit (no pun intended Grin)

For me, I'm thankful that there are people who still care about whether or not we are learning the truth and take the time to correct me when I'm wrong.  That's what critics and skeptics do.  For the most part, not always, but usually the critic or skeptic is someone who has already learned a subject and is well versed in it so when someone does make a mistake, they can teach where the error is.  There are, I'm sure, a few who just get a kick out of antagonizing people whose views are not the same as theirs, but serious critics are usually serious about the subject.

When I first started researching about Atlantis, I didn't have a clue how far in the past people built ships, or when they started gathering together to become societies, or why they believed the Gods were real people, and a ton of other things.  I knew about electricity, I knew about the internal combustion engine, I knew about aerodynamics, how to make Baked Alaska, Grin and things like that, because that was my education.  There was a lot my education didn't cover.  No doubt, it is the same for most people.  I actually think that today's education system is no where near as thorough as mine was, and I know mine was not as thorough as the generation before me.  So unless we actually make an effort to learn the facts for ourselves, we will continue believing whatever is put up on the internet.  It's no wonder that actual scholars get upset with the people who write about a subject, without thoroughly knowing that subject and then ridiculing the people who HAVE studied the subject in depth. 

So taking a look back at everything I learned in the many and varied subjects, I have composed my conclusion regarding the story of Atlantis.  It has always been MY THEORY and no one has to agree with it.  All I ask is that if you do disagree, then show me where I'm wrong with factual evidence,  without making any comments of a personal nature.

Follow your dreams and aspirations, but always do it with thorough research Smiley

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 #2051 on: May 06, 2010, 12:45:53 pm »

Oh - just one other thing.  See how well you would do on this grade 8 exam!! Cheesy Shocked  No cheating!!


This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.




8th Grade Final Exam : Salina , KS - 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run..'
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.


Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000.. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt


U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus 
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States 
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas 
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following : Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates : 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.


Orthography (Time, one hour)
[Do we even know what this is??]
1. What is meant by the following : alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2.. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each : trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word : bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound : card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences : cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks
and by syllabication.


Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America 
5. Name and describe the following : Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco 
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each..
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.


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."
Enigcom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 139


Eyes that saw...Ancient Past


« Reply #2052 on: May 06, 2010, 06:34:18 pm »

This is a Test from a Man I highly admire. Few give him the time he deserves. Go to his site and learn even more.

I believe the ancients knew this information and we need to bring it forward to our time. I hope Tom is finally recognized for his great contributions to Humanity. Someone sent this to me long ago...by now I have forgotten where it came from owing to the nature of my silly computers. I hope it gives you the insight it gave me. Always give Tom Bearden the credit.  

Subject: RE: Are you the great T. Bearden??? please reply
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:27:38 -0500

Hi Julian,   Well, I'm Tom Bearden, for whatever that says (which probably depends on who is doing the "saying"!).  I'm also a graduate of Georgia Tech, 1971, M.S. Nuclear Engineering.  I have worked with four legitimate overunity projects, all of which produced overunity EM systems.  All exhibited certain novel phenomena, and all had or have at least one section and function which violates classical equilibrium thermodynamics and classical electrical engineering theory.  However, none of them violated physics, the conservation of energy law, or the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with an active environment.  All of them, however, did reveal certain phenomena that definitely are not in the normal electrical engineering curriculum, and even some phenomena that are very rare in physics itself, though actually present and known in a small area.  Some of those "extremely unnoticed" phenomena are still proprietary, since a colleague and I have filed a process patent involving their usage. However, my forthcoming book in 2002, to be published by World Scientific, will cover that startling phenomenology also.  It is as easy to produce negative energy as it is positive energy, if the system is in fact overunity, and thus such a system presenting a mix of the two also presents special problems.  As a simple example, a calorimeter cannot be used dependably for measurement of such a mix, because it will measure the effect of the difference, between the positive energy that heats the liquid and the negative energy that simultaneously cools it.  The patent application of my colleague and I deals with the process for handling that mix situation, and in fact of transforming the negative energy to positive energy to be used in excess power to the system.  Again, what we are speaking of does obscurely exist in physics, and it is proven, but just little known.  But we will release the entire gist of it next year, after we have had time to file our foreign patent applications.
 
There are five of us in the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) project together, and I am not the major inventor.  We do presently have a working overunity laboratory experiment.  So do several other folks I'm working with privately as well.

I deleted this information after reading it since it may be proprietary but go to his site for more good stuff.

Orion
 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 06:41:45 pm by Enigcom » Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #2053 on: May 06, 2010, 08:52:19 pm »

Thanks, I'll give it a read.
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 #2054 on: June 04, 2010, 08:17:34 am »

Gwen Parker has posted this article in Atlantis In The Media

http://heritage-key.com/publication/atlantis-evidence-bettany-hughes

Since my own research has shown me that with the "facts" as Plato gave them, a real Atlantis did not exist, the only challenge left would be to determine what it was that influenced Plato's story.  It's possible that the whole idea of a civilization being wiped out by a volcano, intrigued him.  It's the details that make the story so fascinating, and it's the details that don't mesh.  In Plato's account he says there were shoals of mud left.  Thera left a deep cauldron.  Plato says Atlantis was in the ocean, but that her harbors were full of ships.  He didn't know the history of ships or he would have known there weren't any in the time period he gives.  He says Atlantis sunk into the ocean, but he didn't say what happened to the survivors.  He says the Athenian "warlike men" were sunk at the same time, but there were no armies in the time line he gives.  And since there were no ships, the army that didn't exist, couldn't have been out in the ocean, fighting a war.  And since Plato says Atlantis was the one doing the attacking, the non existent army wouldn't have been out in the ocean in the first place, they would be at home defending their borders.  So how could they sink with Atlantis?
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."
Pages: 1 ... 131 132 133 134 135 136 [137] 138 139 140 141   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