Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 18
ISAEYEALLSEEING

Atlantis is a reality find out where here

2,202 posts in this topic

John Luce is a classicist, not a historian, and certainly not an archeologist. He didn't look for Atlantis, but merely theorized that Atlantis was based on the Minoan civilization. Similarly, Eberhard Zanger, who was actually an geologist, wasn't looking for Atlantis either, but theorized that it was based on the then-legend of Troy. Papamarinopoulos is a physicist, and he doesn't so much search for Atlantis, rather he has held two symposiums on it and published the discussions in a book. Thorwald Franke...well, he's an IT guy and a big fan of Atlantis, as per his website.

Can't you see that you create principally impossible criteria?

Archaeologists by nature cannot talk of Atlantis (at least they should not) and not of Troy etc.,

because ... it is a question of interpretation whether this heap of rubble or that heap was Troy or Atlantis, etc.

And this is not the job of archaeologists.

By the way: Zangger is "geoarchaeologist", not geologist.

When it comes to interpretation then classicists are the first ones.

Why do you exclude them? I don't get it. Really. This exclusion is utter nonsense.

You really have to explain this thoroughly if you want to stay with this exclusion.

Left are the historians. They already have interpretations for all known cultures.

The key idea of all academicians in favour of existence is: Atlantis was one of the known cultures.

So the historians have no urge to say of any of these cultures that it was Atlantis. They just leave this to the classicists.

The classicists are the ones who have to act first.

Then the historians.

Then the archaeologists.

Zangger and Luce: Why did they not dig for Atlantis?

Because there is no need for digging! There is a need for interpretation!

(The "IT guy" Franke: Even Atlantis skeptical classicists said of his books that they are "worth reading". Did they ever say anything similar on any book of an Atlantis searcher?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh:

Okay, first off, Ego and Honor are two seperate things.

Second, if you are referring to my offer to teach you about science, it is definitely still on, and it will not be anything quick. You do understanding that I do not post solely for you. I can't be everywhere at once (see, that's ego).

To teach Science you have to be a scientist and not a 'Google Search user', as it seems that you are... If I judge from the number of your posts in this forum .... oh boy ... you could have studied at a University real science if you have used your time wisely. But then I know your reply ... No more comments ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic that a few have raised here that information cannot be hidden, I would like to mention that NO information goes public unless it is 'safe' which means:

1) it will be presented in a way that won't created major social upheaval (that is in the case of religious topics)

2) it won't go against the benefits of very large organizations profit or non-profit

3) it won't go against major lobbies (e.g. archaeologists, historians etc.)

One such recent example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. only 20% was published when they were found and the rest 80% was published after 35 years. Similar it was with the Gospel of Judas.

All excavations for example that take place in Mesopotamia (the cradle of the Civilization according to archaeologists) are under tight control and nothing comes out without permission and what becomes public is less than 2%, according to the (Israel archaeological society of which I am member).

Edited by Ancient-Explorer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you see that you create principally impossible criteria?

Me?

Are you under the impression that I was the one who claimed that there were archeologists and historians actively searching for Atlantis?

Archaeologists by nature cannot talk of Atlantis (at least they should not) and not of Troy etc.,

because ... it is a question of interpretation whether this heap of rubble or that heap was Troy or Atlantis, etc.

It's more a question of how much support the interpretation has. There is nothing in the nature of an archeologist that prevents him from even speculating on a particular civilization without appropriate support, save his own sense.

And this is not the job of archaeologists.

By the way: Zangger is "geoarchaeologist", not geologist.

Huh. Had to look that up. Looks like it may one day become an very interesting and useful addition to the realm of research.

When it comes to interpretation then classicists are the first ones.

Agreed.

Why do you exclude them? I don't get it. Really. This exclusion is utter nonsense.

I excluded them because they did not meet the parameters set by Ancient-Explorer.

You really have to explain this thoroughly if you want to stay with this exclusion.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. There a a million and one classicists out there, and a similar amount of opinions and interpretations of Atlantis. However, the amount of them who are actively seeking the city of Atlantis? Not too many.

Which, of course, makes perfect sense. After all, neither archeaology nor history (necessarily) are the fields of a classicist. A classicist is about art, aesthetics, poetry and prose. It is about how a culture is influenced by its artists and philosophers. It is about trying to get into the mind of the author and determine what he was thinking and how it correlates to what he was saying. It is, in essence, intellectual voyeurism.

My question to you would be...Why would you include them in an archaeological study to begin with?

Left are the historians. They already have interpretations for all known cultures.

And more keep popping up every day.

The key idea of all academicians in favour of existence is: Atlantis was one of the known cultures.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Atlantis wasn't considered any more a culture than the cave of shadows was considered a cave until around 1880-90, or so, when some author decided to do a remake of the original story, this time with the Atlanteans as super advanced and the source of all other civilizations. Then it hit the snooze button again for almost a hundred years, when Edgar Cayce began mumbling about it in his sleep, and all the Cayceites spread the word. The mythical Atlantis that never existed, that of a highly advanced, super-rich, peaceful, spiritual, prototype culture (heck, as anything other than a metaphor) from which all others form is a relatviely new invention.

So the historians have no urge to say of any of these cultures that it was Atlantis. They just leave this to the classicists.

Should tell you something, right there.

The classicists are the ones who have to act first.

Then the historians.

Then the archaeologists.

Not counting the times when the people in the field (gasp!) actually made a discovery. I know, I know, it is hard for us in the internet generation to attribute knowledge to anything other than Interpretive Googleing, but yeah, the hard sciences do actually have a pretty good history of research without involving the classicists.

Zangger and Luce: Why did they not dig for Atlantis?

Because there is no need for digging! There is a need for interpretation!

Assuming one of the current sites is actually Atlantis, of course.

(The "IT guy" Franke: Even Atlantis skeptical classicists said of his books that they are "worth reading". Did they ever say anything similar on any book of an Atlantis searcher?)

I doubt it. Few scientists write books designed for casual consumption; the ones who do are generally retired from the field or have the time and power to do so. I can't imagine an archeological study of the actual, honest-to-goodness site of Atlantis would be anywhere near as interesting as the Hollywood version of it.

The packaging, however, isn't what defines the quality of what is inside.

In all cases, please correct your assumption that I am looking for archeologists or historians actively seeking Atlantis. What I am doing is calling Ancient-Explorer out on his repeated claim that there is, somewhere out there, a significant contingent of these two types of academics who are out there, putting their theories on the line, advocating Atlantis as real. Not only do I believe there isn't a significant contingent, I have yet to be presented with any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquatus1, let me first express thanks for your answers, we do not disagree on all and everthing, that is nice!

After all, neither archeaology nor history (necessarily) are the fields of a classicist. A classicist is about art, aesthetics, poetry and prose. It is about how a culture is influenced by its artists and philosophers. It is about trying to get into the mind of the author and determine what he was thinking and how it correlates to what he was saying. It is, in essence, intellectual voyeurism.

My question to you would be...Why would you include them in an archaeological study to begin with?

Pretty easy! Because Plato was a philosopher! Who wants to find Atlantis first has to show that it's not like the cave of shadows ... and this you do not by digging.

And secondly, you have to get (reasonable) hints for the place. This, too, is not done by digging, only by "digging" in texts (This time not only Plato because Plato can only be interpeted in the context of his time).

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Atlantis wasn't considered any more a culture than the cave of shadows was considered a cave until around 1880-90, or so,

Well, not true, it was a question in all times. Academicians started to deny Atlantis in clear majority around 1800, I guess.

I doubt it. Few scientists write books designed for casual consumption; the ones who do are generally retired from the field or have the time and power to do so. I can't imagine an archeological study of the actual, honest-to-goodness site of Atlantis would be anywhere near as interesting as the Hollywood version of it.

A book for "casual consumption" would never receive a "worth reading" ... I agree on your Hollywood statement.

Find the "worth reading" statement in footnote number 10. The book is available in German only, so there is no danger to make sales promotion here :-)

In all cases, please correct your assumption that I am looking for archeologists or historians actively seeking Atlantis. What I am doing is calling Ancient-Explorer out on his repeated claim that there is ...

The claim of Ancient-Explorer is exaggerated, of course. With the method of historical criticism it becomes clear that Atlantis cannot be like that - if it existed.

One of the biggest mistakes of Atlantis searchers is, that they take Plato's text like the word of god and not like a human being's text who was caught in the thought of his time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes finds stay hidden for the simple reason the published papers are not written in English :

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=245911

This could be the case for unimportant discoveries. Have a look a the story of the dead sea scrolls as an example and you will see what I mean.

What I mentioned for Israel is not unfortunately something that could know since you are not related to the topic, but maybe if you do a search on Google you will find something. But again those discoveries are for the few at the moment ... and in some ways I agree that it should be like this. Otherwise everyone unrelated would have a opinion as you do now ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be the case for unimportant discoveries. Have a look a the story of the dead sea scrolls as an example and you will see what I mean.

What I mentioned for Israel is not unfortunately something that could know since you are not related to the topic, but maybe if you do a search on Google you will find something. But again those discoveries are for the few at the moment ... and in some ways I agree that it should be like this. Otherwise everyone unrelated would have a opinion as you do now ....

What I linked to is not considered to be "unimportant". It's in fact a revolutionary find, but for decades unknown outside the Soviet Union for the reason mentioned.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy really has done his homework.

Most convincing theory yet imho.

http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/

Well, aside from the fact that Atlantis sank in front of the Strait of Gibraltar.

His Bolivian high plateau is just one of the ten suggested locations of Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the theory that Atlantis was the new world and the Biminy Roads under water?

PS, Abe, I tried to PM you here but it was saying your PM doesn't function. So I tried yuku and it got through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the theory that Atlantis was the new world and the Biminy Roads under water?

PS, Abe, I tried to PM you here but it was saying your PM doesn't function. So I tried yuku and it got through.

The Bimini roads aren't roads as such and Atlantis, as originally described by Plato, was located just outside the Pillars of Hercules/Straits of Gibraltar. The New World hasn't been even remotely that close to the Straits since the time of the dinosaurs.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic that a few have raised here that information cannot be hidden, I would like to mention that NO information goes public unless it is 'safe' which means:

1) it will be presented in a way that won't created major social upheaval (that is in the case of religious topics)

2) it won't go against the benefits of very large organizations profit or non-profit

3) it won't go against major lobbies (e.g. archaeologists, historians etc.)

None of this would describe the search for or discovery of Atlantis. It's unrealistic to presume so. Archaeologists and historians in general dwell in a never-ceasing heated atmosphere of publish or perish. Archaeologists, for example, are required to publish the results of their excavations and lab analyses—otherwise, archaeology would serve no purpose. Historians come in all sorts of varieties, but most of them are likewise required to publish their research conclusions if they wish to go on with their careers—otherwise, historical study would serve no purpose.

If Atlantis actually were discovered, it wouldn't have the effects you seem to presume. It would dramatically change our understanding of ancient history, but if you actually knew any archaeologists or historians, you would intuitively know this is not something from which they would hide. It seems only logical on the face of it: an archaeologist who discovered Atlantis would instantly become one of the most famous archaeologists of all time.

There would of course be no "major social upheaval" were such a discovery to occur. Do you honestly think 99% of the world's population would even give a damn?

By the way, neither archaeologists nor historians are lobbyists. They typically work for universities, museums, or similar institutes. Universities, museums, or similar institutes are just as beholden to publish-or-perish if they want to go on existing—otherwise, they would serve no purpose.

One such recent example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. only 20% was published when they were found and the rest 80% was published after 35 years. Similar it was with the Gospel of Judas.

All excavations for example that take place in Mesopotamia (the cradle of the Civilization according to archaeologists) are under tight control and nothing comes out without permission and what becomes public is less than 2%, according to the (Israel archaeological society of which I am member).

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not an example of this, as poorly handled as their translations seem on the face of it. It definitely took too long for the whole corpus to be published, although in truth the majority of them were published long before the final translations were released. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with an attempt to "hide" anything but everything to do with the internal politics and protocols of Israeli archaeology at the time. Individual scholars were provided separate scrolls to work on, and they were given full and free reign in their translations. The only real mistake made was not imposing some reasonable time limit.

And as is obvious to anyone truly familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as highly interesting and significant as they are, they produced no real profound changes to Judaism, Christianity, or the world in general. They were just the library of one ultra-fundamentalist sect of Judaism in late antiquity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatus1, let me first express thanks for your answers, we do not disagree on all and everthing, that is nice!

You do agree that it was not I that stated there were many archeaologists and historians actively searching for Atlantis, right? You acknowledge this is a claim strongly put forth by Ancient-Explorer twice, and never sourced despite direct request?

Pretty easy! Because Plato was a philosopher!

That...doesn't make a lot of sense. Because Plato was a philosopher, you include him in an archeological study? How does him being a philosopher make him any different from being a writer, or some guy who knows an interesting story?

What would the contribution of Akbar be to the search for Shambala, or Hilton's to Shangri-la?

Who wants to find Atlantis first has to show that it's not like the cave of shadows ... and this you do not by digging.

Correct. This you do by showing that there is evidence for the existence of Atlantis outside the context it is originally sourced from, unless the context is specifically a travelogue.

That hasn't happened yet.

And secondly, you have to get (reasonable) hints for the place. This, too, is not done by digging, only by "digging" in texts (This time not only Plato because Plato can only be interpeted in the context of his time).

And how would you define a reasonable hint for a subject which has only been mentioned twice in the history of humanity, by the same person, in the same series of dialogues, as one of multiple metaphors (including other civilizations), for the different political philosophies being discussed in those dialogues?

Well, not true, it was a question in all times. Academicians started to deny Atlantis in clear majority around 1800, I guess.

Instead of guessing, how about you support your claim in a manner similar to mine, by giving a date, a name, an article, heck, anything other than your personal assurance that it's "Well, not true".

Incidentally, Aristotle was denying Atlantis way back in Ancient Greece. I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't start denying the existence of Hogwarts, but it may not make much of a difference.

A book for "casual consumption" would never receive a "worth reading"...

I point you to the inexplicable phenomena that is the "Twilight" franchise.

I agree on your Hollywood statement.

Unfortunately, too many people forget that Hollywood creates movies in reaction to what they believe the customer wishes to see, as opposed to movies that focus on what is actually known.

Much is the same for many writers along the lines of Cayce, Daniken, and Hancock.

Find the "worth reading" statement in footnote number 10. The book is available in German only, so there is no danger to make sales promotion here :-)

Yes, the "worth reading" statement, which follows right behind the "has quite a few deficiencies" comment. Incidentally, where did you find reviews of Franke's work that say he's worth reading? Granted, if you are a classicist, then surely a book explaining how one translator's doubt of another philosopher's (Aristotle) rejection of Atlantis (you got to have some big brass ones to out and out claim Aristotle was wrong about what he specifically said) interpretation of a different story (Illiad), by a different author (Homer), and claiming that the intent of Aristotle doubted Atlantis instead of the Illiad (he actually doubted both) was really nothing more than a translation error...

However, even a classicist is unlikely to refer to this as "casual reading". It's certainly never going to find that title outside of it's own academic niche.

The claim of Ancient-Explorer is exaggerated, of course. With the method of historical criticism it becomes clear that Atlantis cannot be like that - if it existed.

Wait...why not? :huh:

Atlantis wasn't much different from any of the other nemesis found in Ancient Greek stories.

One of the biggest mistakes of Atlantis searchers is, that they take Plato's text like the word of god and not like a human being's text who was caught in the thought of his time.

Agreed. The other is that they refuse to acknowledge the context in which Atlantis is presented.

The biggest one, however, is where they don't even know the story of Atlantis, and just start expounding on the myth of Atlantis as if that were the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy really has done his homework.

Most convincing theory yet imho.

I don't know about this one. Atlantis was rulling all the known world from half-way around the Earth (16 hour flight nowadays)? No mention of the vast, vast ocean in between? No mention of a jungle larger than the entire known world? Elephants in the Mountains of South America? An Atlantis in a mountain basin with no access to the Atlantic Ocean?

Can't really see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aquatus1:

This time you were rather unpolite intentionally misunderstanding some of my statements - but alas.

I would like to better understand your following statement:

Granted, if you are a classicist, then surely a book explaining how one translator's doubt of another philosopher's (Aristotle) rejection of Atlantis (you got to have some big brass ones to out and out claim Aristotle was wrong about what he specifically said) interpretation of a different story (Illiad), by a different author (Homer), and claiming that the intent of Aristotle doubted Atlantis instead of the Illiad (he actually doubted both) was really nothing more than a translation error...

However, even a classicist is unlikely to refer to this as "casual reading". It's certainly never going to find that title outside of it's own academic niche.

( a ) The "worth reading" is not on Franke's Aristotle book. Just to mention, no answer necessary.

( b ) "It's certainly never going to find that title outside of it's own academic niche" - This is valid for 99% of all academic articles and books on Plato's Atlantis, unfortunately. Instead we discuss on books like "Otto Muck" etc. Isn't it a pity?

( c ) You said, Aristotle doubted both, Atlantis and "the Iliad". I do not think that this is still a valid claim after Franke's book. How do you want to substantiate this claim? You have no word by Aristotle on Atlantis. Is the bigness of brass a valid argument? Not really what you want to base your argument on, or? (By the way, Aristotle did not doubt "the Iliad" but a certain sentence on the so-called wall of the Achaeans, just to mention.)

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aquatus1:

This time you were rather unpolite intentionally misunderstanding some of my statements - but alas.

My apologies. I didn't mean to sound impolite.

I would like to better understand your following statement:

( a ) The "worth reading" is not on Franke's Aristotle book. Just to mention, no answer necessary.

But...that's the only book about classicism...which we were talking about, and you directly refered to as the subject of the Atlantis skeptical classisists-s'ts...whatever the plural of classisist is.

( b ) "It's certainly never going to find that title outside of it's own academic niche" - This is valid for 99% of all academic articles and books on Plato's Atlantis, unfortunately. Instead we discuss on books like "Otto Muck" etc. Isn't it a pity?

Yeah, again, "Twilight". I pity our future generations horror movie buffs. But that's off-topic. Sorry, been awhile since I've had a decent monster fix.

And yeah, this was pretty much my point as well. Otto, Danikin, Cayce, they are all Atlantis fiction writers. They write "casual reading" type of things. Real archeologists usually don't have that sort of time.

( c ) You said, Aristotle doubted both, Atlantis and "the Iliad". I do not think that this is still a valid claim after Franke's book.

Well, that's an entire debate in and of itself, and being that I am neither a classicist nor all that into Aristotle (nor all that interested in ancient interpretations in general), I can't really comment on it. If forced, I tend to go with the skeptical and logical analysis of the claim.

How do you want to substantiate this claim? You have no word by Aristotle on Atlantis.

True, which basically removes Socrates from the argument entirely. But, reading over my response yesterday (again, sorry, it was late, and I really should have been in bed..much like right now) and I noticed I wrote "what he specifically said" when what I should have said was "what he specifically wrote". Which actually isn't much more correct, but does lead a bit more where I was going with this.

Is the bigness of brass a valid argument? Not really what you want to base your argument on, or?

Mostly on the dog that didn't bark.

(By the way, Aristotle did not doubt "the Iliad" but a certain sentence on the so-called wall of the Achaeans, just to mention.)

Point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But...that's the only book about classicism...which we were talking about, and you directly refered to as the subject of the Atlantis skeptical classisists-s'ts...whatever the plural of classisist is.

Errr ... the "worth reading" is about Franke's Herodotus book (in German only), a topic surely in the field of classical studies. And there is another book of which Franke is the translation's editor, authored by Gunnar Rudberg, which is discussing the invention of Atlantis according to Plato's experiences in Syracuse on the island of Sicily. So it must be a misunderstanding.

Well, that's an entire debate in and of itself, and being that I am neither a classicist nor all that into Aristotle (nor all that interested in ancient interpretations in general), I can't really comment on it. If forced, I tend to go with the skeptical and logical analysis of the claim.

Congratulations for your reluctance to jump into any premature opinion!

Your last sentence is funny because you did not say towards what you are skeptical ...

... skepticism is always good ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I am sorry for the delay to my reply, but we were interviewing the two members of this forum.

Since I belong to the academic circles, yes there are lobbies larger that what you know ...

Anyway time for me to finish my postings on this forum, one of the members who contacted us will probably move one with the project.

Just a friendly advice, if you would like to do and be someone that contributes to the advancements of our society you need to have a different perspective than the rest and of course solid foundations. If you are happy with what you are then that's perfect, keep doing what you do.

All the best to all of you whatever path you are on.

John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr ... the "worth reading" is about Franke's Herodotus book (in German only), a topic surely in the field of classical studies. And there is another book of which Franke is the translation's editor, authored by Gunnar Rudberg, which is discussing the invention of Atlantis according to Plato's experiences in Syracuse on the island of Sicily. So it must be a misunderstanding.

Yeah, and it's got me a little dizzy. Welp, if it isn't a significant point, then theres no gain in pursuing it.

Congratulations for your reluctance to jump into any premature opinion!

Oh, I got my opinions, but, considering my credentials stated above, I am more than willing to bet a good number of them are dead wrong. You are a man who understands the importance of keeping straight one's opinions, deductions, and knowledge.

Your last sentence is funny because you did not say towards what you are skeptical ...

... skepticism is always good ;-)

Indeed it is, and I refer to the formal nature of skepticism, the attitude of questioning the validity of the argument, as opposed to whether the argument itself is right or wrong. I find skepticism to be an absolutely enjoyable pasttime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the debate if Plato told a true story or describing an ideal country. In my opinion Atlantis existed and Plato described a real thing. Why I support this?

a) If he was describing an ideal country, it wouldn’t have had a bad end…

Your assumption that Plato was describing an "ideal country" reveals that you have no qualms posting about what Plato said while never having read what Plato said.

Plato describes the fall of Atlantis from near-ideal to evil, which explains the "bad end," and also illuminates the fact it is an allegorical work about Plato's opinion of Athens during his time.

I know from a first-hand experience that specific organizations/societies have the alphabet of the Atlanteans and they use it as a form of encryption. Which means that they have access to information that the public do not.

What a load of crapola.

There is plenty of evidence of submerged cities in the Atlantic Ocean (totally disagree with the theory that Atlantis was in Santorini).

Saying a thing doesn't bring that thing into existence. Where is your "evidence?"

And we should have in mind that if evidence of such a supreme civilization was found (which would also include technology) it would never come out in public. Unfortunately the best way to hide true information is to throw in a lot of rubbish – which happens with most of the theories that go against the ‘Status Quo’.

Plato's description of Atlantis indicates a very wealthy Bronze-Age civilization. Since Plato is the only source for information about Atlantis, where'd you get your "technology" angle?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Plato's Atlantis and the Bible?

What is discussible, what is nonsense?

See here: http://www.atlantis-...antis_bible.htm

A reliable overview!

Your assumption ...

Oh yeah!

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of crapola.

Nonsense. This is /exactly/ the sort of thing UNIT has access to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIT)

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning to ears... this may seem entirely off topic and non0-sensickle and smurf/Sadtire like , I preoceed anyways (misspelling ion purpose all timezones can uck themselves)

I wonder If I can keep up with all this exciting news about Atlantis. Still haven't wrapped my head around the facts presented by IS A EYE ALL SEEING since last he was online Feb. 25, and since google chrome deleted his pictures illustrating Atlantis whereabouts. Its too bad I can't see what he's saying without "blumotion" or what have you and it seems we have ended on the note of wikipedia's "U/NIT".

I wonder if I can keep talking in this manner and attract the attention of any worthy sailor who has so many posts and so many stars with circles under his/her name?

I find these places the cracks in the theory that anything can make sense to me, which I believe it does.

Atlantis was last hit on September 11, 2001. The code scratched many surfaces off patcha-mamma's back and reached to Mars and the code be there too..

Atlantis most famous Target Symbol is three coincentric circles. Which sustain and fulfill both the book of revelation (meant to be capitalized) and Plato's perfect number that expressed the Whole or the Plemora? and the three circles make shopping happen, the marketplace, (Pleiadies= Marketplace)

Bruce Willis says the three numbers beginning the number of the whole that apply (in the movie Die hard 2 with V) to the lotto number that morning (466...) before Germany's finest robs New York Municipal BanK (?) of its Gold. Peter Peter, tho says he saw the Christ resurrected may have been referring to a Venus transit in 68 AD. (my joke)

But getting back to the circle and the number of the whole it describes the whole conspiracy of Western Philosophieical thotht.

AND its on the cover of URANITA,...... U ran it ta ya. I brought home homies. From England to New Enlgand with love.

From 2194 Before Christ and 1656 years before the end of the Kali-yuga creation that ended in 538 AD.

ATLAND, OUTLANDISH FACTS that confound history, who;s story, DOCTOR WHAT?

DODECHATROOM BAPHOMET LAUGHTER and DOCTOR ARCTURowrist Im the Biggest ALIEN on URTH_ATLANDTISH, Not in Turkey, Not in Plato's time, in my time in Maine.

The richest most knowledgeable who hum will never oink his best day catch up with me and turn over my applecart.

Just thought this artickel needed more balls and less sense making.

Circle of Churches outpost of old Outlandish> inany body, the seed positions along the ROSE LINE? The Pregnant ISIS Knoked up by BAPHOMET and the ASS?

The Pet Goat>? theaftermath of ATLANTIS? Reliving a wet dream ? The I plead the fifth ians.

Less than constucktive critiaszcism I am showing the WAY to be POSEt_SIDon

ITCHES I can talk you in circles about the lliand of Silver cities

Post flood high society

Mushrooms will tell as much as a food/good Leonardo Painting.

Where does the scarab beetle rest GPS. 33 33 33 ooohhhh AGHGHG

What was the point to any of this.

Unsinceresly RIP

Did Danny Brown start this because Ill end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 18

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.