Lost Civililzations?

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
How about commenting on the following:

Lost civilizations that supposedly flourished on the continental shelves during the last ice age when the sea was much lower than now.

A claim by Bob Ballard to have found remains of a building 95 M below the black Sea.

http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/NEWSPOT/2000/Sep-Oct/N17.htm

Photographs of supposedly ancient underwater ruins off the coast of Japan, all around the Pacific, off Indonesia and Malaysia, off India, and in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Caribbean by Graham Hancock. He claims to have dredged artifacts and human bones from the sea floor off India that dated to 9000 years ago.

http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/default.htm

 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,667
207
63
Regina, SK
They've found some unusual but natural geological formations. Those guys are ignorant idiots, in the same fashion as Erik von Daniken.

Well, perhaps that of a bit hasty judgement. Graham Hancock I can assure you is an ignorant idiot. I'd have to study up on Bob Ballard a bit to be sure. I have heard some legitimate scientific speculation about the Black Sea flooding recently. But chances are...
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
As recent predictions note that many of our coastal cities may be under water in a few generations,I find this plausable. As long as he doesn't declare it to be the fabled Atlantis,that is.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Dexter Sinister said:
They've found some unusual but natural geological formations. Those guys are ignorant idiots, in the same fashion as Erik von Daniken.

Well, perhaps that of a bit hasty judgement. Graham Hancock I can assure you is an ignorant idiot. I'd have to study up on Bob Ballard a bit to be sure. I have heard some legitimate scientific speculation about the Black Sea flooding recently. But chances are...

Hancock is viewed as another von Daniken amoung many in the field but there are some things in his favour. It is known that people have lived in areas that are now covered by the sea, such as between BC and the Queen Charlottes, and off the coast of Alexandria in Egypt. It would be logical to assume that such good, available land would be inhabited during the ice age. Also there are a few reputable archeologists who believe a few of them could be ruins.

Some of them appear to be natural rock formations, and others don't, such as one that looks like a pillar lying on it's side. I can't imagine how that could be natural, but then I wonder, where's the rest of the building?

I think he's stretching things but he's got enough there that I can't dismiss him out of hand.

I caught an interview with Ballard on CBC soon after his discovery. I understood that it was accidental, and he seems to have better evidence than Hancock. He was supposed to be going back to do a more thourough search of the area, but I haven't heard of anything since.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Re: RE: Lost Civililzations?

missile said:
As recent predictions note that many of our coastal cities may be under water in a few generations,I find this plausable. As long as he doesn't declare it to be the fabled Atlantis,that is.

Well, there are several sites all over the world, and there are those who believe them to be the origin of the Atlantis myth.
 

anaxigoras

New Member
Jul 22, 2005
1
0
1
Something you should know about Graham Hancock: Almost everything he has presented, written down, and shared was done long before him. He takes old, trite ideas about Atlantis and claims they're his own.

I have a serious problem with this methodology.

When I first read "Fingerprints of the Gods" I though 'wow, this guy has really done some amazing research', but then I realized (after reading other books on the Atlantis subject) that Hancock is just a copy-cat looking to make $$$$ off of poorly cited ideas.

I might have more respect for the guy if he had admitted that he took/borrowed/stole ideas from others and cited the sources he got those ideas from. After something like this you have to really question his motives now and pretty much everything that he has said.

I admire the fact that he has written books more people can dig into and kept the spotlight on what I'm convinced is an Egyptologists' Conspiracy to keep the general public dumb, but I don't like his methods at all. He's becoming the monster he has tried to fight.

Another thing: Scientists are people. They make the same mistakes as anyone else on this planet. Their science uses belief systems just like religions, but they call them 'paradigms'. They get upset when those 'paradigms' are threatened like any religious zealot would when his or her beliefs are put on the line.

Imagine spending countless hours and effort telling people that 'event A' is true, and then some non-PH.D. with a lousy journalism career like Hancock comes around and provides a convincing argument that your precious 'event A' is hogwash.

That's like saying to a religious zealot 'oh, by the way, we just found out that Christ never existed and here's the evidence to prove it'. FYI: 'the guy who found that evidence ... his name is Billy and he's a college dropout with a shovel. See-yah'.

Of course someone's going to get upset.

Eventually the truth will be known. People like Hancock will be remembered as George Washingtons against a King George of scientific biasedness and inflexibility, possibly even conspiracy. I don't like Hancock anymore than any other self-interest spotlight terd that rolls acrross the stage of life stealing another's thunder.

But, hey, that's history for yah, folks. I don't even watch the History Channel without cynicism and a subscription to their competitor.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Hey isn't that supposed to be the city of MU? lol. naaa, supposedly thats from a different civ. But if you read about Mu it has many interesting connections across the world. I'll have to brush up on this one before I comment any further.


Anyhow there's a good book out there. Can't remember the name of the auther but it's title is "Finger print of the gods" or something like that. My friend read it and I was able to browse it and found it very interesting. Been thinking about buying it but whenever I do see it, it is often on the expensive side.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
A couple of books on the subject done by l.Sprague de Camp: Ancient Ruins,The Ancient Engineers, Great cities of the Ancient World and Jands Beyond. Unfortunately,all are out of print but can be found thru used book dealers .
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Personally I'm not a big fan of the belief of a GREAT lost civilization. The Ruins I have seen, like the one above, do not indicate that much besides a regional civilzation was there.

The possibility of there have been a Mu or an Altantis is possible but with so little known about either I highly doubt they were much more then a regional kingdom/empire or city state with a moderatly influential trading structure.

Of course some trump the discovery of Troy and people thinking it was merely a legand. But when you look at the evidence of Troy, Troy during the time of the Trojan war's was not that large of a town. This has lead researches to believe the fable of the war was overly exsaturated.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
Agreed; Troy 1 was approx. 50 yards in diameter,and citadel like & Troy 2,roughly twice the size. We can't trust a history written by a blind poet,can we? Although,without it,we may never have heard of Troy.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
missile said:
Agreed; Troy 1 was approx. 50 yards in diameter,and citadel like & Troy 2,roughly twice the size. We can't trust a history written by a blind poet,can we? Although,without it,we may never have heard of Troy.

However with that said there could have easyly still been a Trojan war... just not at the level which the Illiad and some historic records may believe. This is due in part that the Romans romantazied the Trojan war and tried to incorperate Trojan history into there own.

I do think the war could have last 10 years as well. But the battles were most likely spread out and really more like skirmishes.

So when legands of Mu and Atlantace are told I think of them in the same way.