Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atlantis Explained!


Rojack

Recommended Posts

On 1/29/2023 at 6:41 AM, Rojack said:

According to Plato, The continent of Atlantis was North America. Make that comparison. Numbers don't lie.

This is madness, how big is America? How big was Atlantis supposed to be? 

where is America and where did Plato say Atlantis was? 

Is America above or below water? And when was it ever completely under water? 

Edited by Peter Cox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peter Cox said:

Is America above or below water? And when was it ever completely under water? 

Don't bother. Rojack simply skips annoying facts, and happily continues quoting from his book.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Peter Cox said:

Show me hoe those SURROUND Florida. 

you do know what surround means? 

Here is the first part of the ditch that surrounds Florida.

https://goo.gl/maps/bn7fPPbRYGtoTqGs7

Here is another part. https://goo.gl/maps/mLxBMd4VYoZVBUPa9

Here is where the ditch ends near Tampa.

https://goo.gl/maps/MGYG8VodZjzBhPeB7

Sea level is higher now, however you can follow the ditch around to Tampa.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rojack said:

Here is the first part of the ditch that surrounds Florida.

https://goo.gl/maps/bn7fPPbRYGtoTqGs7

Here is another part. https://goo.gl/maps/mLxBMd4VYoZVBUPa9

Here is where the ditch ends near Tampa.

https://goo.gl/maps/MGYG8VodZjzBhPeB7

Sea level is higher now, however you can follow the ditch around to Tampa.

 

Neither is a ditch such as Plato details nor 1150 miles long. So it's just more fiction. 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Don't bother. Rojack simply skips annoying facts, and happily continues quoting from his book.

Maybe he's a bot sent by Graham Hancock? :unsure2:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rojack said:

Here is the first part of the ditch that surrounds Florida.

https://goo.gl/maps/bn7fPPbRYGtoTqGs7

Here is another part. https://goo.gl/maps/mLxBMd4VYoZVBUPa9

Here is where the ditch ends near Tampa.

https://goo.gl/maps/MGYG8VodZjzBhPeB7

Sea level is higher now, however you can follow the ditch around to Tampa.

 

You obviously do not respect Plato at all, none of what you have posted is relevant to Platos Atlantis. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Piney said:

Maybe he's a bot sent by Graham Hancock? :unsure2:

It might come as a shock to you but I like Graham Hancock. His theory of prior civilisations being wiped out and knowledge being passed onto hunters and gathers is plausible. 

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

It might come as a shock to you but I like Graham Hancock. His theory of prior civilisations being wiped out and knowledge being passed onto hunters and gathers is plausible. 

He makes up ideas and is clueless on the actual archaeological background of places he cites. His "theory" is just a bull**** lie and his theories on North America and the Serpent Mound are outright B.S. and rewriting someone's history and culture are offensive.

The later "tethered" "hunter-gatherers" were agroforesters whose techniques are just being rediscovered. They were technically more advanced that farmers because it takes more thought to build a self sustaining food source. 

I've been working on a 200 acre Coastal Algonquian "forest garden" for a year now so I can submit a thesis on it and I'm not even close to finishing.

Also stone knapping takes more thought than metal processing.

I also taught flintknapping for 25 years and it took me 10 to rediscover heat tempering techniques to make materials better quality.

Hancock couldn't even reduce a core into bifaces and is clueless on how much intelligence it takes to "live primitive". 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

It might come as a shock to you but I like Graham Hancock. His theory of prior civilisations being wiped out and knowledge being passed onto hunters and gathers is plausible. 

2 hours ago, Piney said:

He makes up ideas and is clueless on the actual archaeological background of places he cites. His "theory" is just a bull**** lie and his theories on North America and the Serpent Mound are outright B.S. and rewriting someone's history and culture are offensive.

Graham Handcock does not have a theory.  He has a story.  He openly declares he's more interested in selling books than discovering anything archaeological or historical.  He says those things he says not because there's evidence for them, not because he believes them, not because there's any logic or reason to imagine they're correct, but because it makes him money.

His position shifts from book to book.  As each theory, each location, each rewriting of history is proven to be wrong, he just names a different location for his 'vanished' civilisation.  The only common tenet is that there is no evidence!  And so far he has suggested Antarctica, NW America, various Mediterranean locations, the North Sea, the Atlantic: places he knows he can write semi-plausible b-s- that people want to believe, and are difficult to argue against.

As always with liars and conmen the burden of proof is shifted: he never has to prove himself right, others always have to prove him wrong.  All he has to do is ask b○ll○cksy leading questions like "Why is nobody at NASA blogging about Bigfoot cities on Mars?  What are they trying to conceal?"* then sit back and let the paranoid mayhem unfurl!

* Not actually one of his quotes, but no less ridiculous. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us romantic types need an engineer to take Plato’s third hand account of a place and subject it to rigorous testing.

 

Tsunami damage on solid state structures isn’t as devastating at the coast as it is in land once the wave height has transposed to the ground level spread of water.

A building of layered stone would be struck by the base of the wave. Its momentum would allow the overhead mass to pass without influence. The wave width would apply force only from the leading edge of the wave to the trailing edge of the wave.

 

After the wave breaks the momentum is conserved in a horizontal plane.  The wave at the coast would allow coastal buildings to leave their foundations whereas inland buildings would leave no trace.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom1200 said:

Graham Handcock does not have a theory.  He has a story.  He openly declares he's more interested in selling books than discovering anything archaeological or historical.  He says those things he says not because there's evidence for them, not because he believes them, not because there's any logic or reason to imagine they're correct, but because it makes him money.

His position shifts from book to book.  As each theory, each location, each rewriting of history is proven to be wrong, he just names a different location for his 'vanished' civilisation.  The only common tenet is that there is no evidence!  And so far he has suggested Antarctica, NW America, various Mediterranean locations, the North Sea, the Atlantic: places he knows he can write semi-plausible b-s- that people want to believe, and are difficult to argue against.

As always with liars and conmen the burden of proof is shifted: he never has to prove himself right, others always have to prove him wrong.  All he has to do is ask b○ll○cksy leading questions like "Why is nobody at NASA blogging about Bigfoot cities on Mars?  What are they trying to conceal?"* then sit back and let the paranoid mayhem unfurl!

* Not actually one of his quotes, but no less ridiculous. 

He's nothing more than a conman trying to make a fast buck.

I never thought about the money end of my intellectual growth but @jaylemurph pointed out that I had spent 10s of thousands between classes, field schools, travel, tools, etc. to learn and people like him make stuff up without spending a dime on their personal education because all cons are lazy and about a instant buck. That's why they're cons. 

Will I make money on my environmental experiments? No, they are about helping humanity and the planet. 

Do I spend money......lots, but doing these kind of things are my idea of fun and vacations. 

A forest garden is the ultimate air purifier, water purifier and carbon sink, but it involves manual labor and small equipment, not GPS equipped super machines that already exists. So I can't patent ****.

Agriculture is easier, which is why people in forest climes switched.

Straight up....Hancock is a lying crook. There are no other words for him.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Piney said:

He's nothing more than a conman trying to make a fast buck.

I never thought about the money end of my intellectual growth but @jaylemurph pointed out that I had spent 10s of thousands between classes, field schools, travel, tools, etc. to learn and people like him make stuff up without spending a dime on their personal education because all cons are lazy and about a instant buck. That's why they're cons. 

Will I make money on my environmental experiments? No, they are about helping humanity and the planet. 

Do I spend money......lots, but doing these kind of things are my idea of fun and vacations. 

A forest garden is the ultimate air purifier, water purifier and carbon sink, but it involves manual labor and small equipment, not GPS equipped super machines that already exists. So I can't patent ****.

Agriculture is easier, which is why people in forest climes switched.

Straight up....Hancock is a lying crook. There are no other words for him.

You’re hating Hancock because he’s found a way to monetise his passion. He offers an alternative view of history nothing more. Much of history has gaps and right or wrong he’s drawing his own conclusions. The establishment doesn’t agree and that’s okay because people have become interested in history and archaeology. There are bigger story tellers out there that seem to get the benefit of the doubt. Why not Hancock

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Graham Handcock does not have a theory.  He has a story.  He openly declares he's more interested in selling books than discovering anything archaeological or historical.  He says those things he says not because there's evidence for them, not because he believes them, not because there's any logic or reason to imagine they're correct, but because it makes him money.

His position shifts from book to book.  As each theory, each location, each rewriting of history is proven to be wrong, he just names a different location for his 'vanished' civilisation.  The only common tenet is that there is no evidence!  And so far he has suggested Antarctica, NW America, various Mediterranean locations, the North Sea, the Atlantic: places he knows he can write semi-plausible b-s- that people want to believe, and are difficult to argue against.

As always with liars and conmen the burden of proof is shifted: he never has to prove himself right, others always have to prove him wrong.  All he has to do is ask b○ll○cksy leading questions like "Why is nobody at NASA blogging about Bigfoot cities on Mars?  What are they trying to conceal?"* then sit back and let the paranoid mayhem unfurl!

* Not actually one of his quotes, but no less ridiculous. 

So what? Mathew Reilly has a story. The bible and all holy books have a story. Ask them for proof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

So what? Mathew Reilly has a story. The bible and all holy books have a story. Ask them for proof

?  Are you making a point with this? 

Are you comparing Handcock's outpourings to works of fiction like Matt Reilly's, or fantasy like the Bible?

I don't remember Matt Reilly making a Netflix series claiming everything he writes is true.  Or that every professional archaeologist, historian, scientist, linguist, etc. who doubts him are part of a conspiracy to silence him.

I don't recall Matt Reilly dogmatically insisting that everyone agrees exactly with whatever he says, despite providing no credible evidence.  "Actually NO - not THAT.  I've changed my mind.  Believe THIS now.  Oh, hang on: it's THIS now and if you don't agree you're part of the problem, part of the cover up."  

At least the Bible and other Holy books are consistent in their silliness.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 7:19 AM, Abramelin said:

Don't bother. Rojack simply skips annoying facts, and happily continues quoting from his book.

 

On 1/30/2023 at 2:35 AM, Peter Cox said:

This is madness, how big is America? How big was Atlantis supposed to be? 

where is America and where did Plato say Atlantis was? 

Is America above or below water? And when was it ever completely under water? 

The idea that Atlantis sunk was a false assumption. The kingdom of Atlantis was North America and South America together. America was the kingdom over the kingdom. South America made up Plato's boundless continent. Florida was the plain of Atlantis. Tampa held the royal city of Atlantis. The royal city was on a small triangular island in Tampa. This small island had three large canals around it. Take your time and read about the royal city again. You will be surprises at what you may find.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

Us romantic types need an engineer to take Plato’s third hand account of a place and subject it to rigorous testing.

 

Tsunami damage on solid state structures isn’t as devastating at the coast as it is in land once the wave height has transposed to the ground level spread of water.

A building of layered stone would be struck by the base of the wave. Its momentum would allow the overhead mass to pass without influence. The wave width would apply force only from the leading edge of the wave to the trailing edge of the wave.

 

After the wave breaks the momentum is conserved in a horizontal plane.  The wave at the coast would allow coastal buildings to leave their foundations whereas inland buildings would leave no trace.

Have you read Plato's story lately? You have explained how the canals got filled with water and the buildings got washed away.Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

You’re hating Hancock because he’s found a way to monetise his passion. He offers an alternative view of history nothing more. Much of history has gaps and right or wrong he’s drawing his own conclusions. The establishment doesn’t agree and that’s okay because people have become interested in history and archaeology. There are bigger story tellers out there that seem to get the benefit of the doubt. Why not Hancock

No, he's a con man making things up without knowing the background and the gaps in history aren't that big. If he was so big into it he would of attended a uni , wrote some papers and learned a little.

There is no gap with Serpent Mound. It was built by the ancestors of the Shawnee and Illini probably as a response to Halley's Comet.

Like a 21st Century Edgar Cayce or Ignatius Donnelly he just makes **** up.

If you want to follow such pure tripe go for it and good luck. But prepare to get hammered by the real scientists here.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storytellers do so for entertainment and sometimes to make a point, Hancock and others like him do it to BS their way into relevance in regards to “understanding” actual history and/or to make money off the gullible. That’s not something to be applauded/admired/etc. 

cormac

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

?  Are you making a point with this? 

Are you comparing Handcock's outpourings to works of fiction like Matt Reilly's, or fantasy like the Bible?

I don't remember Matt Reilly making a Netflix series claiming everything he writes is true.  Or that every professional archaeologist, historian, scientist, linguist, etc. who doubts him are part of a conspiracy to silence him.

I don't recall Matt Reilly dogmatically insisting that everyone agrees exactly with whatever he says, despite providing no credible evidence.  "Actually NO - not THAT.  I've changed my mind.  Believe THIS now.  Oh, hang on: it's THIS now and if you don't agree you're part of the problem, part of the cover up."  

At least the Bible and other Holy books are consistent in their silliness.

I don’t know, I wouldn’t mind a Netflix Mathew Reilly - Temple. Loved that book. Indiana Johns has done more to discredit archaeology and historians yet you don’t hear a peep outta the establishment. 
 

so it’s all about consistency? Ahhh, so a little bit of fact looked at a different angle and perspective is the problem. Got it!

Edited by Unusual Tournament
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rojack said:

Have you read Plato's story lately? You have explained how the canals got filled with water and the buildings got washed away.Thanks.

This guy....

I'm convinced, it's Flordia. Always has been.:lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rojack said:

[Abramelin] ...and happily continues quoting from his book.

:lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

This guy....

I'm convinced, it's Flordia. Always has been.:lol:

It’s not Florida Trelane, Plato was traveling with the ancestor of Rapper FLO-RIDA! :w00t:
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rojack said:

 

The idea that Atlantis sunk was a false assumption. The kingdom of Atlantis was North America and South America together. America was the kingdom over the kingdom. South America made up Plato's boundless continent. Florida was the plain of Atlantis. Tampa held the royal city of Atlantis. The royal city was on a small triangular island in Tampa. This small island had three large canals around it. Take your time and read about the royal city again. You will be surprises at what you may find.

hahahaha so Plato was wrong? 

Wrong about its size, Wrong about its location, Wrong about it sinking, Wrong about its people, Wrong about its buildings?

So he was almost 100% wrong and you are 100% right. Thats a lot of respect you have for him 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rojack said:

Have you read Plato's story lately? You have explained how the canals got filled with water and the buildings got washed away.Thanks.

BUT - as you state Atlantis was never washed away / sunk. hmmmm double standard much? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rojack said:

Have you read Plato's story lately? You have explained how the canals got filled with water and the buildings got washed away.Thanks.

Have you?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.