Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

American Atlantis


  • Please log in to reply
1338 replies to this topic

#1096    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,766 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:52 AM

View PostDragonwind, on 01 August 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

My major thought is why north american indians were not doing what central american people were doing. For the most part they were living in tee pee's. In central america they got to the point of building epic stone and gold cities. But there is a fair difference in environment types between north american plains and forersts and tropical central america that needs to be considered. Once there is a catalyst for a large civilisation and cities, such as agriculture, organised structures can easily become independantly consistent across the globe with no contact.

You may wish to look into American Indian history more. Relatively few Native American tribes lived in tepis. There are also many reasons why North American peoples may not have adopted stone dwellings -- some of them were nomadic, or at least changed residents more than once a year. Wood would have been far more abundant and easier to use. Few tribes would have been big enough to warrant whole Central American-style cities. And a substantial percentage of Indian tribes did practice agriculture, but not necessarily European-style agriculture.

...also, I'm not sure anyone, ever has actually built a city of gold. Far too impractical.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#1097    Dragonwind

Dragonwind

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2011

Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:57 AM

View PostAMARUKHAN111666888, on 01 August 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

RUNA SIMI is considered as one of the 4 proto lenguages of the world according to the project "THE HUMAN PROTO LENGUAGE"
The Aymara was used as a matrix language in a translator program to translate 8 Europeans languages simultaneous.

just in our written era, how many languages were created, how many languages were terminated. how many languages had borrow words from other languages, how many languages were modified.



MAMA (runa simi) as PACHA MAMA (mother earth) = it means mother, mom,  
TATAy it means DADA, DAD;  in TURKISH is TANTA
TANTA it means old or elder.

H.s.s may have been using words for basic language like 'mother' and 'father' tens of thousands of years ago. Not sure but could one safely speculate at least certain parts of our language are extremely old, before H.s.s even left north africa/eurasia??


#1098    Dragonwind

Dragonwind

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2011

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:16 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 01 August 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

You may wish to look into American Indian history more. Relatively few Native American tribes lived in tepis. There are also many reasons why North American peoples may not have adopted stone dwellings -- some of them were nomadic, or at least changed residents more than once a year. Wood would have been far more abundant and easier to use. Few tribes would have been big enough to warrant whole Central American-style cities. And a substantial percentage of Indian tribes did practice agriculture, but not necessarily European-style agriculture.

...also, I'm not sure anyone, ever has actually built a city of gold. Far too impractical.

--Jaylemurph

I realise north american indians were using wood, some stone structures, limited agriculture and even had a considerably large timber city near the Mississippi but my point is they weren't building anything on the complexity of scale as the central and south american indians. Cities of Gold...some cities used considerable gold in finishes, interior design, furnishings, jewelry, symbolism, artwork etc much of which was later taken by the Spanish. I obviously don't mean actually using solid gold building blocks!!! :no:  The point is they were living in complex civic and agricultural environments compared to north america and the the environmental differences between north and south america are a consideration in that.

Edited by Dragonwind, 01 August 2013 - 04:25 AM.


#1099    AMARUKHAN111666888

AMARUKHAN111666888

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2012

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:16 AM

against the common knowledge, the ancient Americans  have a sophisticated systems of agriculture; as a example the pre Inca agriculture system in oruro Bolivia that covers 70 miles long by 10 miles wide, this system includes mountains, land divided in parcels, canals, wells,


#1100    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:53 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 03 July 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

...the Giza Orion "theory," ....I prefer academically sound, peer-reviewed research, not something from the woo-woo cult.

Academically sound peer-reviewed research? Risible. Here is what Egyptologist, Dr Lorraine Evans, thinks of her peers and peer-review:

Quote

”The fact that I had unearthed so many pieces of evidence, archaeological and historical, to show Egyptian settlement in the British Isles raised one question. Why had this all been ignored in academic circles? One of the main reasons, I felt, was that if such information was readily accepted then academia would rapidly have to rewrite huge chunks of history. This would throw certain traditional ‘historical facts’ into tremendous doubt. It is important to stress that many academics’ careers are based on these ‘facts’ and to disprove them overnight would make these people redundant. During the research of this book, I soon discovered that some academics were quite willing to share their work off the record, but when it came to committing it to print they soon backed down and a wall of silence greeted me. None of them, it appeared, wanted to put their jobs on the line, to tell the truth. The sad reality of the matter is that we are relying on these people to tell us our history, but they seem content to operate under a veil of academic censorship.” - Dr Lorraine Evans, Kingdom of the Ark, p.286

You consider the Giza-Orion connection to be "woo-woo"? Really? How ungracious. How arrogant. Wanna have a debate about it?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 19 September 2013 - 11:12 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1101    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,440 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 September 2013 - 01:57 AM

View PostScott Creighton, on 19 September 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Academically sound peer-reviewed research? Risible. Here is what Egyptologist, Dr Lorraine Evans, thinks of her peers and peer-review:

She studied Egyptology, among other subjects. I have studied Egyptology. That doesn't make me an Egyptologist. Nor is she. Had she actually obtained the degree, it would certainly be inert now. Her very premise about a pharaonic connection to ancient Britain is academic tragedy.

Critical thinking, Scott.

I suggest spending some time in real-world, vetted research rather than searching out an old post to try to start another stale squabble.

Quote

ou consider the Giza-Orion connection to be "woo-woo"? Really? How ungracious. How arrogant. Wanna have a debate about it?

SC

Been there, done that. Numerous times, in fact, and involving numerous other posters. No reason to beat a dead horse.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1102    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,961 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 20 September 2013 - 02:02 AM

As someone to whom this idea (of some Egyptian settlement or so in Britain) is new, it strikes me as unlikely but not something academic reputation would be built on or destroyed by.  It seems, in other words, within the realm of mundane possibility, not requiring any special pleading.


#1103    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:36 PM

Quote

SC: Academically sound peer-reviewed research? Risible. Here is what Egyptologist, Dr Lorraine Evans, thinks of her peers and peer-review:

KMS: She studied Egyptology, among other subjects. I have studied Egyptology. That doesn't make me an Egyptologist. Nor is she. Had she actually obtained the degree, it would certainly be inert now.

SC: Get your facts straight. Dr Evans is an expert on the Egyptian priesthood, a regular lecturer on the Egyptology circuit and is a tutor in ancient Egyptian history.

Quote

KMS: Her very premise about a pharaonic connection to ancient Britain is academic tragedy.

SC: Dr Evans doesn’t think so and she is considerably better qualified than you are to say so.

Quote

KMS: Critical thinking, Scott.

SC: Indeed. You should apply some.

Quote

KMS: I suggest spending some time in real-world, vetted research rather than searching out an old post to try to start another stale squabble.

SC: Whenever you arrogantly deploy pejorative terms such as "woo-woo" in relation to the Giza-Orion theory, then be prepared to get jumped on, dear boy. And I don't care how old the post is in which you make such slurs. There are most certainly some ‘out there’ theories around for sure but the Giza-Orion theory isn’t one of them however much you attempt to portray it as such.

Quote

SC: You consider the Giza-Orion connection to be "woo-woo"? Really? How ungracious. How arrogant. Wanna have a debate about it?

KMS: Been there, done that. Numerous times, in fact, and involving numerous other posters. No reason to beat a dead horse.

SC: Yes, you like to hit and run, don’t you. Except the only place you beat anything was in your own head and the only thing that is truly dead is the Pyramid Tomb Theory. Wanna have a discussion about that?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 20 September 2013 - 04:50 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1104    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,484 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 07:27 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 September 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

SC: Whenever you arrogantly deploy pejorative terms such as "woo-woo" in relation to the Giza-Orion theory, then be prepared to get jumped on, dear boy. And I don't care how old the post is in which you make such slurs. There are most certainly some ‘out there’ theories around for sure but the Giza-Orion theory isn’t one of them however much you attempt to portray it as such.

Before you put on your frog suit let me remind you that the supposed Giza-Orion correlation has been refuted on this site by a number of people.  Allow me to refresh your memory on a couple of points:  When the pyramids of Giza were built, the belt stars of Orion were almost 90 degrees from the direction the pyramids were built and to get any kind of alignment today you need to flip either the stars or the pyramids.  Ignoring the evidence and facts that show the supposed correlation to be useless does nothing to support your position but does go a long way in showing how much willful ignorance you are willing to use in the discussions.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#1105    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 20 September 2013 - 08:47 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 20 September 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Before you put on your frog suit let me remind you that the supposed Giza-Orion correlation has been refuted on this site by a number of people.  

SC: A number of people on this Forum (and elsewhere) have done nothing but regurgitate the flawed and wholly eroneous argument of one Dr Ed Krupp. You're a tad out of date. Well, more than a tad.

Quote

Q: Allow me to refresh your memory on a couple of points:  When the pyramids of Giza were built, the belt stars of Orion were almost 90 degrees from the direction the pyramids were built and to get any kind of alignment today you need to flip either the stars or the pyramids.

SC: It all depends on the perspective. Ed Krupp Debunked

I presented the above perspective to Dr Krupp himself. Whilst Dr Krupp has asked me not to make public his actual comments, I can tell you that he was unable to debunk the perspective I presented to him. Dr Krupp assumed (wrongly) that the AEs would view the world using our modern conventions. There is no evidence for that whilst there is evidence that they regarded cardinal south as UP.

Quote

Q: Ignoring the evidence and facts that show the supposed correlation to be useless does nothing to support your position but does go a long way in showing how much willful ignorance you are willing to use in the discussions.

SC: The only willful ignorance on display here is yours. You clearly are ignorant of the fact that Dr Krupp's argument against the Orion-Giza correlation, which you regurgitate above, has been thoroughly debunked and has been for quite some time.


SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 20 September 2013 - 08:48 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1106    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,766 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:47 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 20 September 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

SC: Get your facts straight. Dr Evans is an expert on the Egyptian priesthood, a regular lecturer on the Egyptology circuit and is a tutor in ancient Egyptian history.

Kmt (as is almost invariably the case) /does/ have his facts straight. The only person who includes Dr Evans in the list of respected, professional Egyptologists is Dr Evans. She may well consider herself and expert on Egyptian priests, and she may indeed lecturer regularly to some people who listen to her, but these facts do not lift her out of the quagmire of professional disrepute she herself has chosen to mire herself in.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#1107    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,961 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:05 AM

I hate these debates where people go back and forth citing or denouncing some single person's credentials or believability about a scientific question.  I usually try to stick with what is reasonable and after that just say that I don't know -- unless peer-reviewed citations are available and there is scientific consensus.  Then I go with it.


#1108    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 07:36 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 20 September 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

Kmt (as is almost invariably the case) /does/ have his facts straight. The only person who includes Dr Evans in the list of respected, professional Egyptologists is Dr Evans. She may well consider herself and expert on Egyptian priests, and she may indeed lecturer regularly to some people who listen to her, but these facts do not lift her out of the quagmire of professional disrepute she herself has chosen to mire herself in.

--Jaylemurph

And I have little doubt that Dr Evans' expertise on the ancient Egyptian priesthood is respected by her peers as are her lectures on the subject. The point Dr Evans makes is a simple one - her peers accept her conventional thoughts in public and they accept her radical thoughts (of which she has produced considerable evidence) in private. That such disparities exist amongst academics tells us all we need to know about the inadequacies and failings of peer-review. As Dr Evans says, peer review amounts to nothing more than "academic censorship". I happen to concur with that view.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 21 September 2013 - 07:36 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1109    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,766 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:45 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 21 September 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

And I have little doubt that Dr Evans' expertise on the ancient Egyptian priesthood is respected by her peers as are her lectures on the subject. The point Dr Evans makes is a simple one - her peers accept her conventional thoughts in public and they accept her radical thoughts (of which she has produced considerable evidence) in private. That such disparities exist amongst academics tells us all we need to know about the inadequacies and failings of peer-review. As Dr Evans says, peer review amounts to nothing more than "academic censorship". I happen to concur with that view.

SC

And I can assure you -- with personal knowledge on the subject -- her peers do not. And do you seriously think she's going to tell her cadre of partisans that, "No, seriously, everyone thinks I'm full of ****. Everyone." /Of course/ she's going to make up facts that tell how people really support her and that it's The academic Man that's keeping her down. That's her modus opeandi already, which is why she does not enjoy any significant respect in her profession. I think she enjoys your support because it helps you keep up your fcition of academic conspiracy theories and your notion that you -- special, clever you -- really understand what's going on, that /you're/ cleverer and specialer and braver than all those academic Evans makes up that really support her but can't say so aloud.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#1110    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,380 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 19 September 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Dr Lorraine Evans,

Has she recently defended? Was not aware of such.

.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users