Harte Posted December 3, 2009 #351 Share Posted December 3, 2009 If Atlantis was just a myth that why are there myths similar to it?Like Mu and lemuria. There is no Lemuria myth. Please link me to any Mu myth that is legitimately connected to any ancient society. Some people even decided to connect Atlantis with the Garden of Eden as the origin of civilization. What some people decide to do is not germane, is it? Some people decide to molest children, don't they? Obviously, they are not correct in doing so. With the drive to find this place ancient man would have to develop a vast fleet of ships to croos the worlds oceans which could explain the Pris map. If you mean the Piri Reis map, it's already been explained by the text Reis put right there on the map. The cultures like the Mayas, Egyptians, Tibet, India, and Chinese all have similar mytholigies regarding how we developed civilization with various crafts. They said that they had many gods which gave them the tools and knowlde neccessary to advance as a society. And all of this came from Atlantis. Please provide any evidence at all for the above statement you made. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted December 4, 2009 #352 Share Posted December 4, 2009 If Atlantis was just a myth that why are there myths similar to it?Like Mu and lemuria. Some people even decided to connect Atlantis with the Garden of Eden as the origin of civilization. Because Plato said that it was about 9000 years before his own time. At this time we can conclude that there would have been a Ice Age and that this would have put Man searching for a warm tropical environment like the Garden of Eden. With the drive to find this place ancient man would have to develop a vast fleet of ships to croos the worlds oceans which could explain the Pris map. The cultures like the Mayas, Egyptians, Tibet, India, and Chinese all have similar mytholigies regarding how we developed civilization with various crafts. They said that they had many gods which gave them the tools and knowlde neccessary to advance as a society. And all of this came from Atlantis. I was under the impression that Mu and Lemuria were one and the same modern day myth as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #353 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I was under the impression that Mu and Lemuria were one and the same modern day myth as well? Completely different... Mu was proposed by Churchward in the Pacific and Lemuria was postulated to be in the Indian Ocean to explain the animals getting to India from Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #354 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Completely different... Mu was proposed by Churchward in the Pacific and Lemuria was postulated to be in the Indian Ocean to explain the animals getting to India from Africa. I think it was Le Plongeon, a century ago, who came up with "Mu" (or "Moo" as he called it) first by a 'bit' erroneous translation of a Mayan codex. . Edited December 4, 2009 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSearcher Posted December 4, 2009 #355 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Completely different... Mu was proposed by Churchward in the Pacific and Lemuria was postulated to be in the Indian Ocean to explain the animals getting to India from Africa. You are quite correct, my bad, got that one well wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #356 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) You are quite correct, my bad, got that one well wrong Sorry, but Puzzler is wrong: it was Le Plongeon who first mentioned Mu ("Moo"), long before Churchward rekindled the belief in it. EDIT: OK, I am wrong too: The idea of Mu first appeared in the works of Augustus Le Plongeon (1825-1908), after his investigations of the Maya ruins in Yucatan. He claimed that he had translated the ancient Mayan writings, which supposedly showed that the Maya of Yucatan were older than the later civilizations of Greece and Egypt, and additionally told the story of an even older continent. Le Plongeon actually got the name "Mu" from Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg who in 1864 mistranslated what was then called the Troano Codex using the de Landa alphabet. Brasseur believed that a word that he read as Mu referred to a land submerged by a catastrophe[citation needed]. Le Plongeon then identified this lost land with Atlantis, and turned it into a continent which had supposedly sunk into the Atlantic Ocean: http://www.crystalin...om/lemuria.html Edited December 4, 2009 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #357 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Lots more info here, about Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Charles_Etienne_Brasseur_de_Bourbourg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #358 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Lots more info here, about Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Charles_Etienne_Brasseur_de_Bourbourg According to Churchward, Mu "extended from somewhere north of Hawaii to the south as far as the Fijis and Easter Island." He claimed Mu was the site of the Garden of Eden and the home of 64,000,000 inhabitants - known as the Naacals. Its civilization, which flourished 50,000 years before Churchward's day, was technologically more advanced than his own, and the ancient civilizations of India, Babylon, Persia, Egypt and the Mayas were merely the decayed remnants of its colonies. Geologically, the existence of Mu, as described by Churchward, is extremely unlikely, since the Andesite Line would run through the western parts of the continent. Churchward claimed to have gained his knowledge of this lost land after befriending an Indian priest, who taught him to read an ancient dead language (spoken by only three people in all of India). The priest disclosed the existence of several ancient tablets, written by the Naacals, and Churchward gained access to these records after overcoming the priest's initial reluctance. His knowledge remained incomplete, as the available tablets were mere fragments of a larger text, but Churchward claimed to have found verification and further information in the records of other ancient peoples. James Churchward - Wiki I have a friend, Robin, who is an expert on Mu and what he terms Pan, so much so, he had had a thesis passed by the Monash University here in Australia on his studies of Churchward and Mu/Pan. You can see from the same Wiki article he discussed it with Le Plongeon and Le Plongeon was only inspired after reading it to use the name Mu, Bourbourg never actually had the idea of Mu being as Churchward proposed it... In 1869–1870 Brasseur de Bourbourg published his analyses and interpretations of the content of the Troano codex in his work Manuscrit Troano, études sur le système graphique et la langue des Mayas. He proposed some translations for the glyphs recorded in the codex, in part based on the associated pictures and in part on de Landa's alphabet, but his efforts were tentative and largely unsuccessful. However, his translation would later inspire Augustus Le Plongeon and thus lay the basis for the speculation on the lost continent of Mu. The Name Mu actually goes back to Brasseur de Bourbourg. Bourbourg - Wiki Bit like saying Herodotus invented Atlantis cause he used the term Atlantis Sea in his histories. Then from Le Plongeon - Wiki...which you will find one mention of Mu and here it is... Le Plongeon is also known for his attempted translation of the Troano Codex.The "translation" was viewed with much skepticism at the time, and is considered by all modern authorities to be completely mistaken, based on little more than Le Plongeon's own imagination. He claimed that one section detailed the destruction of the lost continent of Mu, which he interpreted as Atlantis. So, I don't dispute Bourbourg came up with the name, Le Plongeon expanded on the name with his ideas after visiting the Mayan area but Churchward really expanded on the idea of this 'Mu' being in the Pacific, admittedly after he had discussed the idea with Le Plongeon. So, I will reinstate my position of what I originally said...The continent of Mu in the Pacific was put forward by Churchward. Edited to add italics. Edited December 4, 2009 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #359 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Churchward can claim all he want, but no one was ever able to prove those ancient tablets ever existed. Can your friend Robin do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #360 Share Posted December 4, 2009 To take it up a notch Robin claims he has evidence of Mu's existance as well, through core samples he had to produce for the thesis, he swears blind it can be proven that the area of the Pacific was once covered in landmass less than 22,000 years ago. This was how he has the thesis passed, he was able to provide proofs, it was actually failed until he could do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #361 Share Posted December 4, 2009 To take it up a notch Robin claims he has evidence of Mu's existance as well, through core samples he had to produce for the thesis, he swears blind it can be proven that the area of the Pacific was once covered in landmass less than 22,000 years ago. This was how he has the thesis passed, he was able to provide proofs, it was actually failed until he could do this. Let me have a guess: he mentioned "Zealandia" in his thesis ( a landmass, incorperating present New Zealand) that submerged like 20 millions of years ago (same as 'my' - lol - Kerguelen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #362 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Churchward can claim all he want, but no one was ever able to prove those ancient tablets ever existed. Can your friend Robin do that? He didn't need to so I guess he never tried but as my last post said before I saw this one he has his geological proofs that have been passed as solid proof by the Monash University. I wonder why anyone would place so much emphasis on that part anyway..Churchward tells us how hard it was to gain access to them as it was, do you really expect the next Tom, Dick or Harry to just get in this loop too and the priest let them in...I can see it now...knock knock...hello Mr Priest...we heard a man named Churchward came here and you let him read some ancient tablets, well, we don't believe him cause we haven't seem em either, so show us too.....Get Stuffed says the priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #363 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Let me have a guess: he mentioned "Zealandia" in his thesis ( a landmass, incorperating present New Zealand) that submerged like 20 millions of years ago (same as 'my' - lol - Kerguelen). Laugh all you like at him but he has taken this very seriously and no, he is not talking about a landmass that submerged millions of years ago, he is speaking about areas in the Pacific from Hawaii (no where near the area of New Zealand, the only part showing of what you speak of...)that were still there after 22,000 years ago and before 10,000 years ago. I have never seen real proof that this landmass could NOT have been there, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #364 Share Posted December 4, 2009 You will read this on Churchwards Wiki entry... Geologically, the existence of Mu, as described by Churchward, is extremely unlikely, since the Andesite Line would run through the western parts of the continent. That is if you go with the continent proposed by Churchward but Robin's is a bit different and he terms it Pan and it does not go as far as the Andesite Line. So you cut down Churchwards idea easy and it does only say extremely unlikely not impossible even if you wanted to go with it but Robin is not stupid, he has the area downpat as being able to have fit inside the Andesite Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #365 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Laugh all you like at him but he has taken this very seriously and no, he is not talking about a landmass that submerged millions of years ago, he is speaking about areas in the Pacific from Hawaii (no where near the area of New Zealand, the only part showing of what you speak of...)that were still there after 22,000 years ago and before 10,000 years ago. I have never seen real proof that this landmass could NOT have been there, have you? Well, I am NOT laughing at your Robin, I was assuming I knew what he was talking about. But apparently I was wrong. Core samples from the seafloor of the Pacific prove that there was no such thing as a large landmass before 10,000 years ago. He has other data that proves what I just said was wrong? Edited December 4, 2009 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #366 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) You will read this on Churchwards Wiki entry... Geologically, the existence of Mu, as described by Churchward, is extremely unlikely, since the Andesite Line would run through the western parts of the continent. That is if you go with the continent proposed by Churchward but Robin's is a bit different and he terms it Pan and it does not go as far as the Andesite Line. So you cut down Churchwards idea easy and it does only say extremely unlikely not impossible even if you wanted to go with it but Robin is not stupid, he has the area downpat as being able to have fit inside the Andesite Line. Pan is not Robin's idea, I am a 100 % sure I read it somewhere, very long ago. We can go on like this, dancing around eachother forever, but you better invite Robin to post here, and talk about his thesis. I will bet many will be very interested. . Edited December 4, 2009 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #367 Share Posted December 4, 2009 He didn't need to so I guess he never tried but as my last post said before I saw this one he has his geological proofs that have been passed as solid proof by the Monash University. I wonder why anyone would place so much emphasis on that part anyway..Churchward tells us how hard it was to gain access to them as it was, do you really expect the next Tom, Dick or Harry to just get in this loop too and the priest let them in...I can see it now...knock knock...hello Mr Priest...we heard a man named Churchward came here and you let him read some ancient tablets, well, we don't believe him cause we haven't seem em either, so show us too.....Get Stuffed says the priest. Of course Churchward said it was hard to gain access to these tablets; in case anyone tried to find them and failed, he'd say: "I told you so". Jeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #368 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Pan is not Robin's idea, I am a 100 % sure I read it somewhere, very long ago. We can go on like this, dancing around eachother forever, but you better invite Robin to post here, and talk about his thesis. I will bet many will be very interested. . No, it is not Robin's idea, it is in the Oahspe book, which I don't believe for a minute Ethereans sunk the landmass, nor does he but that is where you know of Pan from. I once asked him to join here or write a book on his thesis but he just shook his head and said he knows it's pointless. He's too old to debate this with people ready to cut him down, he did his thesis and he has his proofs that has been recognised by the University and he is happy to sit on that, he has no desire to debate it out with anyone. true, let's not dance on this anymore, science has determined a continent cannot sink (whether he mans an actual continent I don't know, seemed he was talking about areas of land but I am not gonna quote him as saying 'continent') so let that be the status quo hey? It is not my argument, just saying I know someone who himself is convinced and has his proofs of it, which I must say, I did find very interesting talking to him about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #369 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Of course Churchward said it was hard to gain access to these tablets; in case anyone tried to find them and failed, he'd say: "I told you so". Jeesh. But why disbelieve what a man states is true and suspect him of never seeing these tablets, but just made it all up and then because no one else can get to them state he is simply a liar? Are you really like that? Or just following the general thought here what has been told of him, that he was full of crap..? I believe everyone mostly because who am I to say they did not see something, I had to back off my stance on God because of that same issue, who am I to say God does not exist when many claim to have seen him..? Again, not going back to Mu, just wondering about the judgements made on a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #370 Share Posted December 4, 2009 No, it is not Robin's idea, it is in the Oahspe book, which I don't believe for a minute Ethereans sunk the landmass, nor does he but that is where you know of Pan from. I once asked him to join here or write a book on his thesis but he just shook his head and said he knows it's pointless. He's too old to debate this with people ready to cut him down, he did his thesis and he has his proofs that has been recognised by the University and he is happy to sit on that, he has no desire to debate it out with anyone. true, let's not dance on this anymore, science has determined a continent cannot sink (whether he mans an actual continent I don't know, seemed he was talking about areas of land but I am not gonna quote him as saying 'continent') so let that be the status quo hey? It is not my argument, just saying I know someone who himself is convinced and has his proofs of it, which I must say, I did find very interesting talking to him about it. Is he willing to share that thesis with us here? I for one would be very interested. Too old to debate?? We had an Orion Von Koch here who - if I must believe him - was the oldest member of this board (in his seventies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #371 Share Posted December 4, 2009 But why disbelieve what a man states is true and suspect him of never seeing these tablets, but just made it all up and then because no one else can get to them state he is simply a liar? Are you really like that? Or just following the general thought here what has been told of him, that he was full of crap..? I believe everyone mostly because who am I to say they did not see something, I had to back off my stance on God because of that same issue, who am I to say God does not exist when many claim to have seen him..? Again, not going back to Mu, just wondering about the judgements made on a man. Yes, I am really like 'that': I know people can be great liars when they want to be admired They will go to great lenghts to be seen as a prophet or some great philosopher. We all know about Sitchin and Von Daniken; they don't seem to have any problems distorting facts and science to prove their point of view, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #372 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Yes, I am really like 'that': I know people can be great liars when they want to be admired They will go to great lenghts to be seen as a prophet or some great philosopher. We all know about Sitchin and Von Daniken; they don't seem to have any problems distorting facts and science to prove their point of view, do they? I don't think they are lying though, they truly believe what they are saying, I really don't consciously think they are being liars. They may come across as being a liar if you suspect people are lying easily but me, I suggest they actually believe what they are saying and seeing as what they interpret it to be...is someone a liar if they are saying something that happens to appear untrue or is a liar defined by someone who is consciously telling a fabrication? I am not sure I define distorting facts as lying when they believe the reason they are distorting it is valid and genuinely believe what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 4, 2009 #373 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) I don't think they are lying though, they truly believe what they are saying, I really don't consciously think they are being liars. They may come across as being a liar if you suspect people are lying easily but me, I suggest they actually believe what they are saying and seeing as what they interpret it to be...is someone a liar if they are saying something that happens to appear untrue or is a liar defined by someone who is consciously telling a fabrication? I am not sure I define distorting facts as lying when they believe the reason they are distorting it is valid and genuinely believe what they do. Well, in that we differ in opinion: I think they willingly lie. Or distort/cloud facts to suit their point of view, which they believe in like gospel. They look at facts through sunglasses. EDIT: OK, I will reach out a hand... Von Daniken claimed the Nazca lines cannot be viewed in full but from the air. Maybe he just believed what others said, but I know - because I am a skeptic - that it is not true: I walked the nearby mountains, and some of these Nazcan pics can be seen form there. But true, the best way to watch them is from a plane. Edited December 4, 2009 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #374 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Well, in that we differ in opinion: I think they willingly lie. Or distort/cloud facts to suit their point of view, which they believe in like gospel. They look at facts through sunglasses. EDIT: OK, I will reach out a hand... Von Daniken claimed the Nazca lines cannot be viewed in full but from the air. Maybe he just believed what others said, but I know - because I am a skeptic - that it is not true: I walked the nearby mountains, and some of these Nazcan pics can be seen form there. But true, the best way to watch them is from a plane. Some of them....? You just said Von Daniken said 'the Nazca lines cannot be viewed IN FULL but from the air.' So, did you see some of them or all of them from your mountain? Then go on to claim that what he said is not true because you saw some of them...but you did not see all of them IN FULL VIEW from the mountain. So how is what he said NOT TRUE as you state? Edited December 4, 2009 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted December 4, 2009 #375 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Nah, I reckon these guys seriously believe this stuff, like many of these fringe theorists, they are not telling you lies for the sake of themselves, they are telling you exactly what they think has gone down. Sitchin, I believe, seriously believes in what he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now