Atlantis Online
September 18, 2020, 11:31:20 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

ATLANTIS & the Atlantic Ocean 1 (ORIGINAL)


Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ATLANTIS & the Atlantic Ocean 1 (ORIGINAL)  (Read 9504 times)
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #345 on: December 28, 2007, 04:22:39 pm »








Jaime Manuschevich

Member
Member # 3005

Rate Member   posted 03-30-2006 07:13 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brig:
Akhenaton was a Sun worshipper. He was, by far, not the first Sun worshipper. However, most other Sun worshippers tended to also worship the Moon and other natural phenomena. Ra was the Sun. The hebrews were the first to worship an invisible God, but that culture also had many influx gods from surrounding cultures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus it is, but the rite of the bull was previous, since it was made to purify the altar previously the cult to the Hebrew Unique God... Clearly it is established in Numbers and the rite of the Red Cow of the Jewish tradition, that became in the Temple... In the atlantes it had in same objective, like in Babylonia...

This sense to purify the altars with blood followed until the Jewish tradition the change by the wine... Today it even exists in the tradition of the Lamb of God of the Christians... that washes the sins of the world...

--------------------
Jaime Manuschevich
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #346 on: December 28, 2007, 04:26:14 pm »








Jaime Manuschevich

Member
Member # 3005

Rate Member   posted 03-30-2006 07:19 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nekozuki


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nekozuki:
Really Jaime? Here's some convinicing genetic research that points to something was in the Atlantic at one time. Haplogroup X is a mysterious DNA group that is found on BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC. It is mostly found among the mtDNA or older skeletons and mummies of certain people living on both sides of the Atlantic. The Iroquois and a few other Native American tribes carry this gene group, along with the Guanches, people living on the west coast of the British Isles and the Basques of Spain. None of this seems to point to Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we do not know, we do not know it, and much with it can be speculated. But what we know, it indicates the same chosen point in genetic terms. And it pleases or no, he is totally coincident with my theory...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 He would have to do some convincing on how that DNA group got all the way across the Atlantic from Israel to East coast America. Why would they go out of their way in such a disaster? My point being Atlantis was in the Atlantic, nuff' said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data are data and the beliefs, beliefs... Each one can thinks what wants, that the sun even turns around the Earth... but that is not the truth.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #347 on: December 28, 2007, 04:27:06 pm »








Jaime Manuschevich

Member
Member # 3005

Rate Member   posted 03-30-2006 07:42 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't said anything substantial to dispute the idea of Atlantis in the Atlantic other than you think Plato was mistaken, and, of course, offering your opinion that all the theories together and saying that they aren't scientific. Well, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. But Atlantis in Israel bears no resemblance to anything Plato spoke about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can think what you wants... Each human being sees what wants and listens what wants...

--------------------
Jaime Manuschevich
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #348 on: December 28, 2007, 04:28:13 pm »








Boreasi

Member
Member # 2421

Member Rated:
   posted 03-30-2006 12:37 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neko, Desire,

The x-haplogroup is significant and good lead - investigating the pre-historic connections across the Atlantic. Could I be so frank and ask if you could check up on the gentic leads more thoroughly - to back up your argument?

We would need some more references/cross-references to have a valid and reliable basis for this argument. As you know main-stream science are more than reluctant to accept the conseqences of this discovery. Thus I believe you/we can make a real and genuine contribution by establishing this element into its rigth context...!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #349 on: December 28, 2007, 04:29:14 pm »








Jaime Manuschevich

Member
Member # 3005

Rate Member   posted 03-30-2006 12:42 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree:

With respect to Bimini, raised by you previously, I put here two opinions of experts, which I share:

About “Atlantis Road”:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 “In the Bahamas, pilots and divers wondered for years about the so-called "Atlantis Road” a long row of seemingly connected stone blocks in about 15 feet of water. Gene Shinn of the St. Petersburg office of the U.S. Geological Survey became fascinated by the story and investigated in 1978. His conclusion: The blocks are natural, caused by a combination of sea level rise and erosion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Yucatan Channel:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ballard said he has heard of the formations in the Yucatan Channel but is not convinced they are the work of humans.

"That's too deep," he said of the 2,000-foot site. "I'd be surprised if it was human. You have to ask yourself, how did it get there?

"I've looked at a lot of sonar images in my life," Ballard said, "and it can be sort of like looking at an ink blot -- people can sometimes see what they want to see. I'll just wait for a bit more data."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/17/Worldandnation/Underwater_world__Man.shtml
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #350 on: December 28, 2007, 04:30:25 pm »








Desiree

Member
Member # 2991

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 12:58 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie, in the first place, Ballard has never been to the Cuba site, he is simply parroting the words of other geologists who have never been there either.

The only one who has is geologist Dr Manuel Iturralde of Cuba's Natural History Institute, who has seen them up close and implies they're manmade.

"They (megalithic stones) are very unique structures. They really are not easy to understand and I do not have any easy explanation for them in a natural geological process."
— Manuel Iturralde-Vinent, Ph.D., Geologist,
National Museum of Natural History, Havana, Cuba

http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm

In the second place, just the fact that you bring up Gene Shinn as an educated source just goes to show that you haven't been reading any of the articles I asked you to read. First off, that dating is twenty years old, second, his dating is the subject of the hoax that Atlantis Rising is covering in it's magazine this month:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient Harbor Evidence

Overall, the evidence from the expedition pointed to an obvious conclusion we have previously put forth: both the Bimini and Andros

Dimitri Rebikoff, a French oceanographer who had a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, immediately recognized the Bimini Road as an ancient harborworks when he first viewed it in 1969. Rebikoff was personally involved in surveying and photographing dozens of the ancient Mediterranean harbors when they were discovered. Rebikoff presented his evidence from the Bimini Road to a large group of European geologists and archaeologists in the 1970s, and all agreed that it appeared to be a harbor identical to several in the Mediterranean. Rebikoff has either been ignored by the skeptics or depicted as a gullible "new ager." But texts and articles in underwater archaeology describe Rebikoff as "a brilliant oceanographer." During this trip, the evidence we found for human hands being involved with the formation of the Bimini Road is overwhelming and irrefutable. We do not assert that the timeframe for their use as harbors was 10,000-years ago. That issue remains unsettled at the moment, however, with the seabed there constantly increasing in height, the dating of the harbors is quite problematical.

Because the finds from this expedition were completely contrary to what two skeptical geologists and a skeptical archaeologist wrote in their 1970's, 80's, and 2004 articles, the original journal articles published by the skeptics were obtained and carefully reviewed. Another reason that these articles were examined was the astonishing number of factual and spelling errors evident in a 2004 article published in the Skeptical Inquirer by the main skeptic, Eugene Shinn. To understand the background circumstances of the geologist's findings, it is necessary to provide a few details. First, both of the geologists who are the main skeptics only held bachelor's degrees. In fact, Eugene Shinn,who is now 71-years old, the US Geological Survey geologist who published the most damning articles, had nothing but a bachelor's degree in biology until 1998. Shinn stated he was awarded a Ph.D. in 1998 "because of his publication record." Second, the skeptics' time spent at Bimini was very limited and their funds were limited. At least one of them went there with the intention of bringing sense into what was perceived as nonsense.

Discovering that there were serious discrepancies in the details of results presented in the initial study published by the most skeptical geologist (Shinn) with both of his susequent reports, he was contacted along with the other prominent skeptical geologist (John Gifford). After a series of interactions, the following astonishing conclusions, backed by evidence that includes written statements from one or the other of the skeptics, have been reached. Note that none of these conclusions were expected prior to the contacts with the geologists.

First, neither of the geologists appear to know precisely where all their cores were taken. There is definite evidence, both from descriptions in their published reports as well as in our finds at Bimini, that some of their "tested" cores were taken from locations other than the Bimini Road. We counted all the cores on the Road and noted their positions via GPS. (We actually found "misdirected" cores about a mile away from the Bimini Road, took GPS coordinates on them, and both filmed and photographed them.) In truth, in the early 1970s, few people were aware of the precise location and actual extent of the Bimini Road.

Second, all the carbon dates cited by skeptics for the blocks at the Bimini Road are unreliable and do not provide even a rough guess of the age of the stones. This is because of the "bulk carbon dating method " used, which definitely contaminates stone with a constant inflow of modern carbon.

Third, although many skeptics assert that Uranium-Thorium dating was done on stones from the Bimini Road, that is totally untrue. Gifford dated the bedrock immediately under the large blocks (somewhere on the Bimini Road) to 15,000-years ago—utilizing the more accurate Uranium-Thorium technique. Skeptics are loathe to mention that finding, which was published in Gifford and Ball's original article.

Fourth, none of the skeptics could have actually examined all of the Bimini Road from the surface, much less looking closely at stones from the bottom. This is self-evident because their observations about the stones are clearly inaccurate and are actually easily refuted. This factor, along with others, led to inaccurate conclusions about the site.

Fifth, numerous stones have cube-like and carved rectangular slabs underneath them that serve as leveling stones. Dozens of rectangular slabs were discovered, many of which were literally stacked under larger blocks. Skeptics have claimed that there are no prop stones under any blocks, but this simply isn't true. The carved rectangular slabs under several massive blocks could not have dropped from boats. They appear to be leveling supports for the large blocks.

Sixth, a series of conclusions and observations first published by the skeptics is nearly totally inaccurate and directly contrary to the actual evidence.

Seventh, skeptics claim that not a single block comprising the Bimini Road sits on another block. This isn't true and with an hour or two of diving and exploring they could have easily found many examples. Only a few examples of multiple tiers are shown in this article, but many more will be on the video. The majority of the massive blocks, which have sides not covered in sand, have underlying stones, prop stones, and leveling slabs.

Eighth, the primary claim made by the skeptics about the Bimini Road, that it is a single slab of beachrock that fractured in place, is based on a near-total distortion and a later gross misstatement of what was actually found. In Eugene Shinn's first article, published in 1978 in the journal Sea Frontiers, Shinn reported that he took 17 cores on the Road, with 8 in one area and 9 in another area. The cores were taken in an attempt to look at the internal bedding of the stones to determine their original formation. Beachrock forms on a beach where constant wave motion moves small pebbles and sand onto a continuously cementing carbonate stone. As the pebbles cement into the forming stone, they leave a distinctive inner set of banding layers that dip toward the deep water. Shinn hoped to find that all the stones of the Bimini Road showed the exact same internal bedding—identical layers of pebbles—dipping toward deep water. In the area with 8 cores, Shinn reported that there were no discernable internal bedding layers present. In the area of the 9 cores, he reported that some of the internal bedding layers dipped toward deep water and many of them were horizontal. Because nothing he found in his cores argued for the manmade origin of the stone blocks, Shinn concluded that the blocks had to all be from a single massive piece of beachrock that fractured in place. But in his 1980 Nature article with skeptical archaeologist Marshall McKusick, the summary of the findings from Shinn's 1978 core results stated this: "Two areas of the formation were studied, and both show slope and uniform particle size, bedding planes, and constant dip direction, from one block to the next." In a 2004 article in the Skeptical Inquirer, Shinn again repeated the results of his 1978 cores on the Bimini Road: "Sure enough, all of the cores showed consistent dipping of strata toward the deep water, and distinctive layers of rounded beach pebbles could be traced from one stone to another." In brief, the results Shinn reported in 1978 do not match, even remotely, with what he wrote in 1980 and again in 2004. According to his original detailed findings in Sea Frontiers, only a quarter or less of the cores he took showed a bedding plane toward deep water. About half of the cores, according to his report, showed no internal bedding whatsoever. The other cores showed a horizontal bedding.

Shinn was subsequently contacted and asked about this major discrepancy in his initially reported results and subsequent summaries. He admitted that his 1980 and 2004 summaries were "imprecise" and were the fault of "no peer review." It was an unsatisfactory explanation, especially since Shinn continues to make the same inaccurate assertion in newspaper articles and conference talks. Then Shinn unexpectedly added, "but you can't see internal bedding in 4-inch cores." Interestingly, all of Shin's cores were 4-inch cores. He seemed to be admitting that none of the cores could have possibly showed any internal bedding anyway. He also verified that his carbon dates were done utilizing the unreliable bulk sampling method and that students learning carbon testing did most of the tests. This came after one of his own articles in the journal Geology was cited, wherein bulk testing of beachrock was described as unreliable and likely to be contaminated. Despite all of these factors, Shinn ridiculed the new finds at Bimini and stands by the natural beachrock explanation, despite the facts he concedes in the above.

This was all completely unexpected, and it seems that the young and inexperienced geologists who conducted the research were influenced by their own biased beliefs and pressured by others with high academic and professional standing. The grossly exaggerated results in the later "scientific" reports are bewildering. McKussick utilized the Bimini study published in Nature, and again later in an article in Archaeology, to state that the Cayce organization is a "cult and a religion." He asserted that Cayce was a fake and that the Bimini Hoax was perpetrated to bring attention to the Cayce organization and tourists to Bimini. In his emails Shinn related that there was "craziness" going on at Bimini and it appears he wanted to bring a scientific resolution to it. The journal editor was happy to get a "geological exlanation" and put an end to the controversy. Shinn admitted that he "did it for fun" and that "there was not the usual rigor associated with our regular research." But whatever actually occured as the results were compiled, what was actually found and what was claimed to have been found are vastly different. The 1980 Nature article by Shinn and McKusick termed the affair "the Bimini Hoax." It appears that they were quite correct, but their assertion about the identity of the hoaxers was projected onto others rather than the real culprits.

Last, while the skeptics claim that there are no toolmarks or a single human artifact ever found there (that couldn't have been dropped from a boat), that has been proven untrue. There are numerous massive and smaller blocks with many toolmarks including mortises and large cuts into stone. (These are not the cuts made into a few stones by the geologists themselves.)

Other than what seems to be quite contradictory and inaccurately reported results in the most skeptical reports, one other fact becomes clear. Numerous textbooks claim that the 1970's and 80's research by the skeptical geologists produced irrefutable proof that the Bimini Road was nothing more than a huge single piece of natural beachrock that fractured in place. These textbooks reference all the skeptical geological "studies." Documentaries on Atlantis, which discuss Bimini, invariably have a skeptical geologist or two who state that they have carefully "read all the research published on the Bimini Road" and that the "evidence clearly shows that it is natural beachrock dated to somewhere around 2000-years ago." If it is true that they actually read all the original skeptical geologists' reports, that means the so-called "scientists" authoring the textbooks and appearing on the documentaries are pseudoscientists themselves—engaging in a deliberate falsification or deliberate misstatement of results to fit a preconceived agenda. However, if these individuals only read secondary sources (subsequent skeptical articles or textbooks describing the results of the original research), then they have also engaged in another form of pseudoscience considered to be nonscientific in textbook writing. This assertion is made because, if they actually "carefully read the original research reports" as they claim, they had to see the obvious discrepancies.

A DVD documentary, tentatively titled "Uncovering The Great Bimini Hoax," is now in preparation with its release scheduled for October 2005. In brief, the documentary will demonstrate that the hoax was perpetrated by the skeptics themselves. That's an amazing assertion, but one that has been totally documented. The release date coincides with the ARE's Annual Ancient Mysteries Conference where all the results will be fully presented. However, the film itself will not be shown at the conference as a detailed talk will be presented with both photos and some video clips.


(<<<REFERENCES TO PICTURES ON THE LINK>>>>)


Above: Dozens of rectangular slabs are strewn around the Bimini Road. Photo—Bill Donato



Above: Photo showing another stone block with a rectangular slab used as a leveling prop stone. Photo—Greg Little
Above: The area where a dozen anomalous stones were discovered. Note that the large stone in the middle is nearly covered with smaller stones, silt, shells, and debris. Photo—Lora Little


formations appear to be the remains of ancient harbors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://edgarcayce.org/am/bimini2005report.html

Anyway, no peer review, bulk carbon dating, admitted motives, admittedly done "without the usual scientific rigor," but the bottom line: some of the samples didn't even come from the Bimini Road.

Not to mention the "expert" only had a Bachelor's degree for his whole career.

That is not science, sorry.

Oh, and one reading did date the Bimini Wall back to 15,000 bc.

But, you can think what you want, just as every other human being is free to do!
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #351 on: December 28, 2007, 04:31:33 pm »








Desiree

Member
Member # 2991

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 01:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jaime Manuschevich:
Nekozuki


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nekozuki:
Really Jaime? Here's some convinicing genetic research that points to something was in the Atlantic at one time. Haplogroup X is a mysterious DNA group that is found on BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC. It is mostly found among the mtDNA or older skeletons and mummies of certain people living on both sides of the Atlantic. The Iroquois and a few other Native American tribes carry this gene group, along with the Guanches, people living on the west coast of the British Isles and the Basques of Spain. None of this seems to point to Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we do not know, we do not know it, and much with it can be speculated. But what we know, it indicates the same chosen point in genetic terms. And it pleases or no, he is totally coincident with my theory...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 He would have to do some convincing on how that DNA group got all the way across the Atlantic from Israel to East coast America. Why would they go out of their way in such a disaster? My point being Atlantis was in the Atlantic, nuff' said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data are data and the beliefs, beliefs... Each one can thinks what wants, that the sun even turns around the Earth... but that is not the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy are you ever wrong on this one, Jamie.
As you're about to see in a minute. 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #352 on: December 28, 2007, 04:32:36 pm »








Desiree

Member
Member # 2991

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 01:22 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boreasi:
Neko, Desire,

The x-haplogroup is significant and good lead - investigating the pre-historic connections across the Atlantic. Could I be so frank and ask if you could check up on the gentic leads more thoroughly - to back up your argument?

We would need some more references/cross-references to have a valid and reliable basis for this argument. As you know main-stream science are more than reluctant to accept the conseqences of this discovery. Thus I believe you/we can make a real and genuine contribution by establishing this element into its rigth context...!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, well, it sure wasn't hard to find, so here you go:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North America
Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, occurring at a frequency of about 3%. It is found with particular prevalence in the Ojibwa (25%) from the Great Lakes, the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakima (5%).

Unlike the four main Native American haplogroups (A, B, C, and D), X is not at all associated with East Asia. This has led to speculation that the haplogroup X occurrences might indicate a minority European ancestry for some Native Americans. A particularly concrete suggestion was that the genetic inheritance might reflect transatlantic links perhaps made in about 20,000 BC by the Solutreans, a stone-age culture excavated in south-west France and Spain, who it was suggested might have carried on an Atlantic-spanning maritime life around the margins of the retreating ice-age Atlantic ice fields, similar to the existence of the present-day Inuit.

The speculation abated somewhat when haplogroup X individuals were discovered in Altaia in South Siberia. However, more detailed examination has shown that the Altaian sequences are all almost identical, suggesting that they arrived in the area probably from the South Caucasus more recently than 5000 BC. On the other hand, the North American haplogroup X DNA (now called subgroup X2a) is as different from any of the old world X2 lineages as they are from each other. This suggests that the ancestors of the X2a population presumably separated very early from all of the other X2 lineages, but gives little clue as yet to the true path of their migration from the Near East to North America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I give Neko all the credit for this, though, as she was the one to first bring it up!
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #353 on: December 28, 2007, 04:33:37 pm »








Desiree

Member
Member # 2991

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 01:26 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article mentioned the Solutrean Cuture of France:

Solutrean

The Solutrean industry was an advanced flint tool making style of the Upper Palaeolithic.

It is named after the type-site of Solutré in the Mâcon district, Saône-et-Loire, eastern France and appeared around 19,000 BCE. The makers of Solutrean-style tools used techniques not seen before and not rediscovered for millennia. They also made ornamental beads and bone pins as well as creating prehistoric art.

They produced relatively finely worked, bifacial points using pressure flaking rather than cruder flint knapping. This method permitted working of delicate slivers of flint to make light projectiles and even elaborate barbed and tanged arrowheads.

Large thin spear-heads; scrapers with edge not on the side but on the end; flint knives and saws, but all still chipped, not ground or polished; long spear-points, with tang and shoulder on one side only, are also characteristic implements of this industry. Bone or horn, too was used.

The name was created by G de Mortillet to describe the second stage of his system of cave-chronology, following the Mousterian and he considered it synchronous with the third division of the Quaternary period.

The Solutrean work exhibits a transitory stage of art between the flint implements of the Mousterian and the bone implements of the Magdelanian epochs. Faunal finds include horse, reindeer, mammoth, cave lion, rhinoceros, bear and urus. Solutrean finds have been also made in the caves of Les Eyzies and Laugerie Haute, and in the Lower Beds of Cresswell Crags in Derbyshire in England.

The pioneers of this new flint working technique lived in modern day France and Spain and disappeared from the archaeological record around 15,000 BCE as mysteriously as they appeared. Given the technological superiority of Solutrean tools it is difficult to ascribe a reason for their replacement by the Magdalenian culture. Some archaeologists have found similarities between the Solutean industry and the later Clovis culture / Clovis points of North America and suggested that the Solutreans crossed the Ice Age Atlantic by moving along the pack ice edge using survival skills similar to that of modern Inuit people.

Others argue that through force of numbers, the makers of Magdelanian tools replaced the Solutrean culture through invasion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/mt.php?a=47
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #354 on: December 28, 2007, 04:34:46 pm »








nekozuki

Member
Member # 2762

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 01:36 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Des, there is a certain connection to the Clovis and Solutrean.

--------------------
" Om Vasudevaya Namaha!"
With loving reverence, I bow to Lord Vishnu!
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #355 on: December 28, 2007, 04:35:54 pm »








Boreasi

Member
Member # 2421

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 07:35 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des,

Which institutes have contributed in this research? Links?

Lets have the real deal...
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #356 on: December 28, 2007, 04:37:01 pm »








docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 03-31-2006 07:49 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big deal! we all know there was a mixture of homo sapians that migated to the Americas, however thats not what the story of Atlantis was really all about. 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #357 on: December 28, 2007, 04:38:18 pm »








Boreasi

Member
Member # 2421

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 08:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets please have the facts - FIRST. Then we may discuss their impact and relevance. Besides from being obstructive Your last statement is nothing but pre-conclusive, if not pre-mature. WHAT's up Docy?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #358 on: December 28, 2007, 04:44:11 pm »








docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 03-31-2006 08:45 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
boreasi, we know there was a mixture of homo sapians that made it to the new world in DNA, for there are no hommids bones found in the Americas.When you talk of Atlantis a hero God, its only refers to the mediterranean. 
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #359 on: December 28, 2007, 04:45:14 pm »








nekozuki

Member
Member # 2762

Member Rated:
   posted 03-31-2006 08:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Timaeus and Critias could also be Greek influenced.

--------------------
" Om Vasudevaya Namaha!"
With loving reverence, I bow to Lord Vishnu!
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64   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