Real Atlantis Story Suppressed?

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Still, a civilization on Antartica, the terrestrial portion of which (not counting the current ice sheets) is still fairly small and isolated. It is highly unlikely they could have developed an advanced culture rapidly.

Who says they developed rapidly? Maybe they had tens of thousands of years to develop their culture before they traveled to and colonised other parts of the world. How can we know if we don't know what's under those huge layers of ice?

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

All this aside from the fact that a significant enough pole shift to give it a warm climate has not happened since humankind evolved.

According to some, the so-called "Ice Ages" and the end thereof are caused by pole shifts.

Anyway, there's also "Hollow Earth" theory, but (although there is a physics theory to explain it all) even I find this too farfetched as it requires most polar NASA footage to be forged, many governments to be complicit in hiding the polar holes and you'd expect at least one person to have gone inside, taken pictures and put them on the Internet. But still : some people believe not aliens or some lost culture on the surface of the earth but a culture within Hollow Earth is the origin of the lost civilisation. I should add this to be complete since (although not very plausible) I'm not aware of any evidence contradicting it (if you're willing to accept claims that NASA is involved). Nevertheless, I would like to stess that I do NOT support this theory.

[albie]

We are currently not capable of space travel (beyond earth orbit) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Similarly, we're currently not capable of building some of the structures the ancients built (like the pyramids) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Ignoring evidence of advanced stone building techniques is as silly as ignoring evidence of space travel as both imply advances in civilisation beyond our own.

BWAHAHAHAH! You are assuming ancient man could travel through space. BWAHAHAHAHA! Why? Because of all your other assumptions.

Circular logic. I suppose that's what powers their ships?

[albie]

>>I'm talking about the use of portable furnaces able to mould a connection between two blocks each weighing tons at the spot, as the ends of the metal part requires it to be moulded within both stone blocks itself. This would still be a puzzle for many 21st century engineers.

Provide more info on this. Where does it occur?

[albie]

>>True. However, when the shades of grey are very similar a comparison is justified.

Grey means ambiguous. Hence unknowable, hence you cannot justify it.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by albie

BWAHAHAHAH! You are assuming ancient man could travel through space.

No I'm not. You're twisting my words (as you seem to do often). I was just making an analogy.

Originally Posted by albie

>>I'm talking about the use of portable furnaces able to mould a connection between two blocks each weighing tons at the spot, as the ends of the metal part requires it to be moulded within both stone blocks itself. This would still be a puzzle for many 21st century engineers.

Provide more info on this. Where does it occur?

I'll have to look up the details. I saw footage of these blocks and the metal in between on some TV documentary but I don't remember the exact details.

Originally Posted by albie

>>True. However, when the shades of grey are very similar a comparison is justified.

Grey means ambiguous. Hence unknowable, hence you cannot justify it.

In this case, "grey" implies that only some parameters are known. You can compare the parameters you DO have, leaving the other parameters open for interpretation/speculation/interpolation.

[albie]

>>No I'm not. You're twisting my words (as you seem to do often). I was just making an analogy.

So you are saying ancient man didn't fly around in space ships now?

Well, we are in agreement with the evidence then.

[albie]

>>In this case, "grey" implies that only some parameters are known. You can compare the parameters you DO have, leaving the other parameters open for interpretation/speculation/interpolation.

I gave an example of this correlation between the Tao and quantum physics and it wasn't very good. This was chosen by someone who DID read the book.
It would logical for you to entice me into reading the book if you gave me more startling quotes from the book.

I see faces in rusty cans. I suppose those are the faces of gods peeking at me? One looks like Jesus! Oh, it must be him! Grey means=bad evidence no matter how you slice it.

You haven't proven to me why you believe rather than wonder or suspect.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by albie

So you are saying ancient man didn't fly around in space ships now?

To my knowledge, there's no evidence they ever did. Although mythological records do seem to suggest the "Gods" were flying around in vehicles, this alone does not suffice as evidence.

Originally Posted by albie

I gave an example of this correlation between the Tao and quantum physics and it wasn't very good. This was chosen by someone who DID read the book.

So? Just because someone did read a book, that does't mean he gives accurate information about it. You should know better.

Originally Posted by albie

It would logical for you to entice me into reading the book if you gave me more startling quotes from the book.

I'll have to take a look. The book was recommended to me and I own a copy, but I thusfar haven't read it.

Originally Posted by albie

You haven't proven to me why you believe rather than wonder or suspect.

I DON'T believe. I DO wonder and suspect. I just mix mainstream science with philosophy and controversial science, whereas you seem to stick to mainstream science.

[albie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie
I gave an example of this correlation between the Tao and quantum physics and it wasn't very good. This was chosen by someone who DID read the book.

So? Just because someone did read a book, that does't mean he gives accurate information about it. You should know better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by albie
It would logical for you to entice me into reading the book if you gave me more startling quotes from the book.

I'll have to take a look. The book was recommended to me and I own a copy, but I thusfar haven't read it.

OH. MY. GOD.

You haven't even read the book and you hold it up as fact? Sweet lord. And you think you have a better opinion of it than someone who has read it?


I think this alters my opinion of you for good now. I won't trust a word you say. Nor should anyone.

Christ, you should be apologising.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by albie

You haven't even read the book and you hold it up as fact? Sweet lord. And you think you have a better opinion of it than someone who has read it?

It was recommended to me by one of the wisest people I've ever met and he did read the book.

Originally Posted by albie

I think this alters my opinion of you for good now. I won't trust a word you say. Nor should anyone.

I try to read as much as possible, but I can't read everything. You rely on the word of someone who read the book yet you consider my arguments invaluable because I do the same. Isn't that pretty hypocritical?!?

Originally Posted by albie

Christ, you should be apologising.

What for?