Exactly How Old Are Homo Sapiens?

[Total Science]

Personally I don't think history is something you believe in, it is a matter of trying to understand what historic and modern sources say about an historic event

Have you tried to understand what Sonchis, Solon, Dropides, Critias, Plato, Crantor, Posidonius, Strabo, Proclus, Marcellus, Kircher, Hapgood, and Flem-Ath have said about the history of Antarctica and the war between Antarctica and the Mediterranean?

"As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. ... He [Crantor] adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars are written on pillars which are still preserved." -- Proklos, philosopher, 5th century

"Crantor ... even, it seems, went to the length of sending a special enquiry to Egypt to verify the sources of the story, and the priests replied that the records of it were still extant 'on pillars.'" -- J.V. Luce, archaeologist, 1969

"Crantor came to Sais and saw there in the temple of Neith the column, completely covered with hieroglyphs, on which the history of Atlantis was recorded. Scholars translated it for him, and he testified that their account fully agreed with Plato's account of Atlantis." -- Otto Muck, philosopher, 1978

Why don't you believe historic and modern sources?

and to see if one can verify the statements with what can still be found today.

Why don't you believe Antarctica exists today?

As long as there is not enough data to make definite statements it seems wiser not to make concrete judgements but suspend that judgement and see if one can make ones opinion about something historic more sure by finding new data.

If that's true, then why are you passing judgement without evidence?

As for Antarctica being a supposed Atlantis, all seems well until one has to find a way to explain that at the same time in the Critias it is mentioned that it sunk and made that part of the sea badly navigable by ship because of the mud. So as long as there are mountainranges on Antarctica and until this day a sailingboat has never traversed these, it seems highly unlikely that Antarctica would be Atlantis.

Are you saying that Antarctica is ice free? Evidence please.

Even Kircher phantasizing about it, doesn't change that fact.

Why do you think Antarctica is a fantasy?

As for Athena and Neith (or whatever the spelling may be), for sure it is possible to compare gods between different theological/religious systems, but one has to be very careful in confusing the fact that saying that somethings are the same is something different than saying somethings are similar. Although perhaps certain correspondences can be found between for instance Athena and Neith, they still have markedly different functions and attributes within their own system. Even more so if one has to deal with them not only theologically but also philosophically, as Plato and also Egyptians have done.
Also names of gods maybe be in use of several centuries or even millenia, one can see that there function or placing in rank may differ because of different cultures moving into the region and adapting/integrating the regional system into their system or vice versa. This has happened in Egypt as well as Greece.
There is a lot more to names of gods and what they signify than mere planets, the more probable is even that the planetary naming even in Classical times had more to do with putting astronomy in relation to religion/philosophy than the other way around.

Please provide evidence that Neith, Nit, Astarte, and Ishtar are not the planet Venus.

As for angels and e.t.'s, it seems to me mister Downing is not so original in his ideas, even worse, he seems to have misunderstood Jacques Vallee in an essential way. I don't know if you know Vallee's books but it could be a good idea to look him up in the library or something like that.

I agree there is no such thing as an original idea. Thanks for the headsup on Vallee.

[StefanR]

Personally I don't think history is something you believe in, it is a matter of trying to understand what historic and modern sources say about an historic event

Have you tried to understand what Sonchis, Solon, Dropides, Critias, Plato, Crantor, Posidonius, Strabo, Proclus, Marcellus, Kircher, Hapgood, and Flem-Ath have said about the history of Antarctica and the war between Antarctica and the Mediterranean?

Yes, I have, but Sonchis, Solon and Critias are figures in Plato's work and not real sources, Plato is the first and only source for the Atlantis myth

"As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. ... He [Crantor] adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars are written on pillars which are still preserved." -- Proklos, philosopher, 5th century

"Crantor ... even, it seems, went to the length of sending a special enquiry to Egypt to verify the sources of the story, and the priests replied that the records of it were still extant 'on pillars.'" -- J.V. Luce, archaeologist, 1969

"Crantor came to Sais and saw there in the temple of Neith the column, completely covered with hieroglyphs, on which the history of Atlantis was recorded. Scholars translated it for him, and he testified that their account fully agreed with Plato's account of Atlantis." -- Otto Muck, philosopher, 1978

That it was still to be found on pillars is in the Critias itself so no new fact is brought forth, you should try to read the whole Proclus quote in i's context because he tells a lot more that that

Perhaps Crantor came to Egypt and found a guy at the Pyramids with a camel offering a ride, Crantor asked for the evidence for Atlantis and the camelguy said, sure come along for 50 gold coins I can give you all the evidence you want

I too, I replied, shall be extremely well satisfied.
Then faint not in pursuing the speculation, he said.
Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there are the same principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the individual they pass into the State? --how else can they come there? Take the quality of passion or spirit; --it would be ridiculous to imagine that this quality, when found in States, is not derived from the individuals who are supposed to possess it, e.g. the Thracians, Scythians, and in general the northern nations; and the same may be said of the love of knowledge, which is the special characteristic of our part of the world, or of the love of money, which may, with equal truth, be attributed to the Phoenicians and Egyptians. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.5.iv.html

Little has changed since

Why don't you believe historic and modern sources?

I didn't say that

and to see if one can verify the statements with what can still be found today.

Why don't you believe Antarctica exists today?

I have never seen it, but I've seen it on tv and in books and I know of people who where there, so it is save to assume it is there, but I don't believe it

As long as there is not enough data to make definite statements it seems wiser not to make concrete judgements but suspend that judgement and see if one can make ones opinion about something historic more sure by finding new data.

If that's true, then why are you passing judgement without evidence?

I'm not

As for Antarctica being a supposed Atlantis, all seems well until one has to find a way to explain that at the same time in the Critias it is mentioned that it sunk and made that part of the sea badly navigable by ship because of the mud. So as long as there are mountainranges on Antarctica and until this day a sailingboat has never traversed these, it seems highly unlikely that Antarctica would be Atlantis.

Are you saying that Antarctica is ice free? Evidence please.

Mountainranges suggest elevation, with a thick load of ice (despite the Al Gorian claptrap), in relation to what is said in the Critias, it isn't possible for Antarctica to be Atlantis,
You did read the Critias, did you?

Even Kircher phantasizing about it, doesn't change that fact.

Why do you think Antarctica is a fantasy?

Read a little bit better what I said

As for Athena and Neith (or whatever the spelling may be), for sure it is possible to compare gods between different theological/religious systems, but one has to be very careful in confusing the fact that saying that somethings are the same is something different than saying somethings are similar. Although perhaps certain correspondences can be found between for instance Athena and Neith, they still have markedly different functions and attributes within their own system. Even more so if one has to deal with them not only theologically but also philosophically, as Plato and also Egyptians have done.
Also names of gods maybe be in use of several centuries or even millenia, one can see that there function or placing in rank may differ because of different cultures moving into the region and adapting/integrating the regional system into their system or vice versa. This has happened in Egypt as well as Greece.
There is a lot more to names of gods and what they signify than mere planets, the more probable is even that the planetary naming even in Classical times had more to do with putting astronomy in relation to religion/philosophy than the other way around.

Please provide evidence that Neith, Nit, Astarte, and Ishtar are not the planet Venus.

You just have to actually read what I said

As for angels and e.t.'s, it seems to me mister Downing is not so original in his ideas, even worse, he seems to have misunderstood Jacques Vallee in an essential way. I don't know if you know Vallee's books but it could be a good idea to look him up in the library or something like that.

I agree there is no such thing as an original idea. Thanks for the headsup on Vallee.

Read all his books and you will never claim to know what et is again, you will like it

[Total Science]

Yes, I have, but Sonchis, Solon and Critias are figures in Plato's work and not real sources

Why don't you think Solon was a real historical figure? Why don't you think Plato was related to Solon and in personal possession of his diaries? Why do you think Plato was a liar?

Plato is the first and only source for the Atlantis myth

That is a lie. Plato is not the first and only source and even if he was it would be irrelevant. Homer is the first source for the Trojan War. Does that mean you think Turkey is a myth? Antarctica is not a myth.

Perhaps Crantor came to Egypt and found a guy at the Pyramids with a camel offering a ride, Crantor asked for the evidence for Atlantis and the camelguy said, sure come along for 50 gold coins I can give you all the evidence you want

There is no evidence to support your personal fantasies, speculations, and mythological fairy tales.

I have never seen it, but I've seen it on tv and in books and I know of people who where there, so it is save to assume it is there, but I don't believe it

Abderite LOL. No wonder you don't believe in history.

Read all his books and you will never claim to know what et is again, you will like it

Looking forward to it...

[StefanR]

Yes, I have, but Sonchis, Solon and Critias are figures in Plato's work and not real sources

Why don't you think Solon was a real historical figure? Why don't you think Plato was related to Solon and in personal possession of his diaries? Why do you think Plato was a liar?

Solon is a historical figure, I do not doubt that. You keep on mentioning diaries, but I have searched and searched and cannot find any mentioning of it. I understand them to be some sort of journal that is maintained periodically by the owner of such, were is it said that Plato had diaries and were in the Critias is Plato a speaker?
It's not that Plato is a liar, on the contrary, but what I do say is that Plato doesn't write as straightforward as you seem to suggest. Check out the link GreyCloud gave a few posts earlier, it lifts the veil just a little to see that. Also Proclus' books can give you some insight into that in a astounding way, but it does mean one has to read them.
But then again, if you now earlier or other independant sources, share it with the world, because a lot of folks would be happy to know of more than only that what Plato has suggested.

Plato is the first and only source for the Atlantis myth

That is a lie. Plato is not the first and only source and even if he was it would be irrelevant. Homer is the first source for the Trojan War. Does that mean you think Turkey is a myth? Antarctica is not a myth.

But it is relevant. Because if Plato is the primary source and all later writers are only expounding on what he wrote, these secondary sources will not bring anything new to the data except their interpretations and beliefs. For instance if I watch Southparks' Imaginationland, I can wonder and follow some clues in the episodes to see if I can speculate where Imaginationland must be or have been, but I could also figure out what was meant by the analogy presented therein. And although Homer is writing about Troy, it is more probable that he uses it as an analogy than simply being a pure historian documenting a historic fact or event. Yes, I know of Schliemann and his find, but Homer was used in a different way in those days than as a historic anecdote. But then again you have to have read the Iliad and the Odyssey and how people in those days interpreted the stories on more than one level.
It has nothing to do with the geographic region called Turkey, although in those days Turkey and the Turks didn't exist. Of course Antarctica is not a myth, but using the Critias as source for Atlantis (which is a myth), one should use all the information provided therein and not just what you deem proper to substantiate the hypothesis of Antarctica being Atlantis. Because one cannot sail with a boat across Antarctica, not because it is muddy but because there are mountainranges and a big chunk of ice on top of it.

Perhaps Crantor came to Egypt and found a guy at the Pyramids with a camel offering a ride, Crantor asked for the evidence for Atlantis and the camelguy said, sure come along for 50 gold coins I can give you all the evidence you want

There is no evidence to support your personal fantasies, speculations, and mythological fairy tales.

It was meant in jest.

I have never seen it, but I've seen it on tv and in books and I know of people who where there, so it is save to assume it is there, but I don't believe it

Abderite LOL. No wonder you don't believe in history.

I probably was not speaking too clear. Let me say it like this, I know Antarctica exists, hence I need not have to believe it to exist.

Read all his books and you will never claim to know what et is again, you will like it

Looking forward to it...

[Total Science]

Solon is a historical figure, I do not doubt that.

Why do you believe Plato when it comes to Solon but not when it comes to Antarctica?

You keep on mentioning diaries, but I have searched and searched and cannot find any mentioning of it.

You ought to read Plato's Critias.

But it is relevant. Because if Plato is the primary source and all later writers are only expounding on what he wrote, these secondary sources will not bring anything new to the data except their interpretations and beliefs.

Absolute nonsense. If that's true then why do scientists and scholars continue to publish new work on old subjects?

although Homer is writing about Troy, it is more probable that he uses it as an analogy than simply being a pure historian documenting a historic fact or event. Yes, I know of Schliemann and his find, but Homer was used in a different way in those days than as a historic anecdote. But then again you have to have read the Iliad and the Odyssey and how people in those days interpreted the stories on more than one level.

Do you believe Troy is real, yes or no? And if you believe Homer, then why don't you believe Plato, Crantor, Posidonius, etc.?

It has nothing to do with the geographic region called Turkey, although in those days Turkey and the Turks didn't exist. Of course Antarctica is not a myth, but using the Critias as source for Atlantis (which is a myth), one should use all the information provided therein and not just what you deem proper to substantiate the hypothesis of Antarctica being Atlantis.

We have the Egyptian map to prove that Atlantis is Antarctica.



There you go denying history again.

Because one cannot sail with a boat across Antarctica, not because it is muddy but because there are mountainranges and a big chunk of ice on top of it.

Are you saying that there has been no climate change in Antarctica?

Do you think climate change in Antarctica is also a myth?


Warm water coral in Antarctica.

"And immediately there is the problem of the climate. There were ancient climates that were very different from what they are today. If those corals grew where they were found, certainly the Earth was not travelling with the same elements of rotation and revolution which means not in the same orbit, not with the axis directed in the same position as it is today. If you don't believe it, try to cultivate corals on the North Pole." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Via The New York Times 1984:

FOR years a few imaginative authors have argued, based on 16th century maps, that the ice-covered continent of Antarctica was discovered and mapped by an ancient civilization, perhaps one from another planet. The latter proposition was dismissed by most geographers and historians as preposterous.

Nevertheless, a careful comparison of information appearing on the maps with what is now known of the continent has led a leading geologist and polar specialist to propose that the outlines of Antarctica may, in fact, have been known long before Columbus reached America.

Sullivan, W., New Analysis Hints Ancient Explorers Mapped Antarctic, The New York Times, Sep 1984

Via Science News 1986:

The new find of roots and stems of wooden plants and of pollen in an area stretching about 1,300 kilometers along the Transantarctic Mountains means not only that the ice retreated but also that the climate was warm enough to support a shrublike beach forest. "The presence of the wood means that there was deglaciation on a major scale, with conditions radically different than they are today," says David Elliot, chief scientist of the recent National Science Foundation polar expedition, of which Webb's group was part. "This is a very significant find." Webb thinks the forest region a few million years ago must have resembled the present-day fjords of Chile and Norway.

According to Webb, before the forest developed, the region was covered by a considerable amount of ice. So an important question is where the forest and pollen came from. "Had the forest been living there all the time, and are we overestimating the severity of the earlier glacial record?" he wonders.

Weisburd, S., A Forest Grows In Antarctica, Science News, Volume 129, Number 148, Mar 1986

Via Terra Antarctica Reports 1999:

The [Antarctic] ice sheet has resulted in one of the most extreme environments on the planet - mean annual temperature in the interior is between -50oC and -60oC - and yet in the distant past 200 million years ago the Antarctic was a continent of forests and plains with temperatures of around 10oC or more. Here we review evidence from the Antarctic continent of changes in climate that have taken place over the last 100 million years, a period that has seen the formation of a mountain range across the middle of the continent, and its change from an ice-free to an ice-covered state.

Barrett, P., Antarctic Climate History Over The Last 100 Million Years, Terra Antarctica Reports, Volume 3, Pages 53-72, 1999

Via Science Daily 2008:

ScienceDaily (July 29, 2008) — A snapshot of New Zealand’s climate 40 million years ago reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica, according to research recently published in the journal Geology.

The study suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets. ...

“This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today,” said Dr Catherine (Cat) Burgess from Cardiff University and lead-author of the paper. “And the seawater chemistry shows there was little or no ice on the planet.”

Snapshot of Past Climate Reveals No Ice In Antarctica Millions of Years Ago, Science Daily, Jul 2008

I know Antarctica exists, hence I need not have to believe it to exist.

This contradicts your earlier statement that Atlantis is a myth.

[StefanR]

Solon is a historical figure, I do not doubt that.

Why do you believe Plato when it comes to Solon but not when it comes to Antarctica?

Because Solon is mentioned by other greeks aside of Plato and Antarctica is not mentioned by Plato or other greeks or egyptians for that matter

You keep on mentioning diaries, but I have searched and searched and cannot find any mentioning of it.

You ought to read Plato's Critias.

I have in several translations, but still no diaries, which translation do you have that mentions diaries specifically?

But it is relevant. Because if Plato is the primary source and all later writers are only expounding on what he wrote, these secondary sources will not bring anything new to the data except their interpretations and beliefs.

Absolute nonsense. If that's true then why do scientists and scholars continue to publish new work on old subjects?

We are talking about Atlantis here, not any old subject

although Homer is writing about Troy, it is more probable that he uses it as an analogy than simply being a pure historian documenting a historic fact or event. Yes, I know of Schliemann and his find, but Homer was used in a different way in those days than as a historic anecdote. But then again you have to have read the Iliad and the Odyssey and how people in those days interpreted the stories on more than one level.

Do you believe Troy is real, yes or no? And if you believe Homer, then why don't you believe Plato, Crantor, Posidonius, etc.?

I don't know if Troy is real or not, Schliemann said he found Troy, but I can't remember any find of a citysign saying "Welcome to Troy" (in greek of course), but maybe you can show me

It has nothing to do with the geographic region called Turkey, although in those days Turkey and the Turks didn't exist. Of course Antarctica is not a myth, but using the Critias as source for Atlantis (which is a myth), one should use all the information provided therein and not just what you deem proper to substantiate the hypothesis of Antarctica being Atlantis.

We have the Egyptian map to prove that Atlantis is Antarctica.

That is not a Egyptian map, and if it is, what coincidence it truly is that they called America America aswell, this is Kirchner's 17th century map on the basis of what he read of Plato and his belief of being able to read hieroglyphics

There you go denying history again.

No, I'm just not trying to phantasize about it

Because one cannot sail with a boat across Antarctica, not because it is muddy but because there are mountainranges and a big chunk of ice on top of it.

Are you saying that there has been no climate change in Antarctica?

Did Atlantis sink or not? Did you read the Critias?

Do you think climate change in Antarctica is also a myth?

The climate on earth is always changing, more or less, do you deny there being a continent covered in ice on the south pole of planet earth?

Warm water coral in Antarctica.

"And immediately there is the problem of the climate. There were ancient climates that were very different from what they are today. If those corals grew where they were found, certainly the Earth was not travelling with the same elements of rotation and revolution which means not in the same orbit, not with the axis directed in the same position as it is today. If you don't believe it, try to cultivate corals on the North Pole." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

Yes, ancient climates where different, how convenient to not indicate how ancient that is, thank you Immanuel

Via The New York Times 1984:

FOR years a few imaginative authors have argued, based on 16th century maps, that the ice-covered continent of Antarctica was discovered and mapped by an ancient civilization, perhaps one from another planet. The latter proposition was dismissed by most geographers and historians as preposterous.

Nevertheless, a careful comparison of information appearing on the maps with what is now known of the continent has led a leading geologist and polar specialist to propose that the outlines of Antarctica may, in fact, have been known long before Columbus reached America.

I guess they are talking about Hapgood here? Do you say that Hapgood said that Antarctica was completely free of ice in the recent past?

Sullivan, W., New Analysis Hints Ancient Explorers Mapped Antarctic, The New York Times, Sep 1984

Via Science News 1986:

The new find of roots and stems of wooden plants and of pollen in an area stretching about 1,300 kilometers along the Transantarctic Mountains means not only that the ice retreated but also that the climate was warm enough to support a shrublike beach forest. "The presence of the wood means that there was deglaciation on a major scale, with conditions radically different than they are today," says David Elliot, chief scientist of the recent National Science Foundation polar expedition, of which Webb's group was part. "This is a very significant find." Webb thinks the forest region a few million years ago must have resembled the present-day fjords of Chile and Norway.

A few million years ago, sure there could have been a shrublike beach forest,

According to Webb, before the forest developed, the region was covered by a considerable amount of ice. So an important question is where the forest and pollen came from. "Had the forest been living there all the time, and are we overestimating the severity of the earlier glacial record?" he wonders.

How do new islands in the Pacific become pollinated, I might ask this genius of an chief scientist

Weisburd, S., A Forest Grows In Antarctica, Science News, Volume 129, Number 148, Mar 1986

Via Terra Antarctica Reports 1999:

The [Antarctic] ice sheet has resulted in one of the most extreme environments on the planet - mean annual temperature in the interior is between -50oC and -60oC - and yet in the distant past 200 million years ago the Antarctic was a continent of forests and plains with temperatures of around 10oC or more. Here we review evidence from the Antarctic continent of changes in climate that have taken place over the last 100 million years, a period that has seen the formation of a mountain range across the middle of the continent, and its change from an ice-free to an ice-covered state.

200 million years ago

Barrett, P., Antarctic Climate History Over The Last 100 Million Years, Terra Antarctica Reports, Volume 3, Pages 53-72, 1999

Via Science Daily 2008:

ScienceDaily (July 29, 2008) — A snapshot of New Zealand’s climate 40 million years ago reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica, according to research recently published in the journal Geology.

The study suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets. ...

“This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today,” said Dr Catherine (Cat) Burgess from Cardiff University and lead-author of the paper. “And the seawater chemistry shows there was little or no ice on the planet.”

A snapshot 40 million years ago in New Zealand says nothing about the central regions of Antarctica, but hey, Al Gore will be grateful and new funding will be immenant for "Cat"

Snapshot of Past Climate Reveals No Ice In Antarctica Millions of Years Ago, Science Daily, Jul 2008

I know Antarctica exists, hence I need not have to believe it to exist.

This contradicts your earlier statement that Atlantis is a myth.

I was answering your question regarding Antarctica, I was not answering about Atlantis there,
My intention was to make clear that your are constantly retorting with why I don't belief something you are believing in, but let me ask you a question in a similar way, so that perhaps you recognize that debating technique
Please tell me Total Science, when did you stop beating your wife?

just look up " loaded question " in google

[Total Science]

Because Solon is mentioned by other greeks aside of Plato and Antarctica is not mentioned by Plato or other greeks or egyptians for that matter

That's illogical. Atlantis is mentioned by other greeks aside of Plato as well.

I have in several translations, but still no diaries, which translation do you have that mentions diaries specifically?

Jowett.

We are talking about Atlantis here, not any old subject

So? You suddenly throw logic out the window when it comes to Antarctica?

I don't know if Troy is real or not

LOL. Well no wonder you don't believe in Antarctica.

Did Atlantis sink or not?

It sunk. The last time I checked Antarctica is covered in ice.

Did you read the Critias?

Yes but you don't consider the Critias to be a valid source so why are you asking?

[StefanR]

Because Solon is mentioned by other greeks aside of Plato and Antarctica is not mentioned by Plato or other greeks or egyptians for that matter

That's illogical. Atlantis is mentioned by other greeks aside of Plato as well.

If you can point them out for me, please, I would be very grateful

I have in several translations, but still no diaries, which translation do you have that mentions diaries specifically?

Jowett.

I did a wordsearch here
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html
But no diaries, are you sure?

We are talking about Atlantis here, not any old subject

So? You suddenly throw logic out the window when it comes to Antarctica?

No, you are changing the subject

I don't know if Troy is real or not

LOL. Well no wonder you don't believe in Antarctica.

If that makes sense to you, that's fine with me

Did Atlantis sink or not?

It sunk. The last time I checked Antarctica is covered in ice.

So, either you shouldn't make use of the Critias to claim Antarctica as Atlantis, or use the Critias without claiming that Antarctica is Atlantis, but if you really really want to, go ahead and make your day

Did you read the Critias?

Yes but you don't consider the Critias to be a valid source so why are you asking?

At least it can be said that you can't use the Critias for claiming Antarctica is Atlantis, but feel free to do so anyway
I will be away on vacation for a while so I will not be able to answer for the time being, perhaps when I'm back

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud: In other words, it’s hearsay

By your defintion, over 99% of history is heresay. Does that mean it never happened?
Either you believe in history or you don't. I do; obviously you don't.

You seem to use the word ‘believe’ a lot. You also seem to see yourself as an expert at judging people. For the record I have studied history for over 45 years; I own well over 500 books on the subject; and I have a degree in Politics and Contemporary History. Yet again you make yourself look foolish.

"... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

Relevance, aside from him using the word 'believe'? What has the opinion of an engineer in the 1970s, and another Velikovskian(?), got to do with the way Plato uses the characters in his dialogues?

And why did you interpolate 'antarctica' into the passage?

Because Sonchis and Plato's description of Atlantis is a description of Antarctica.

Don’t you believe in geography? Plato describes Atlantis as lying beyond the Pillars of Hercules, as your own quote clearly states. Plato did not describe it as being south of Ethiopia. Are you calling Plato a liar? Plato also describes Atlantis as consisting of several concentric circles separated by a canal network. Does the Antarctic fit this description. And as StefanR has already mentioned, Plato states that Atlantis sank beneath the waves, yet the Antarctic is still there. Are you calling Sonchis and Plato liars again?

If that map is ancient Egyptian then why is it labelled in Latin and why is there a late-medieval European galleon in the top right-hand corner?

You have not provided any evidence.

For what? I’m not claiming that Atlantis was anywhere other than where Plato said it was.

Tautological facts don't require evidence. They are self-evident. Neith is the planet Venus. Since Athena is Neith, therefore Athena is Venus. Very basic logic.

I know what a tautology is but would like to know a ‘tautological fact’ is. I think you are getting mixed up with a syllogism with your example.
That the goddess Neith was viewed by the Egyptians as the goddess of Love does not automatically make her the planet Venus. Similarly, commonalities between Athene and Neith do not automatically mean that Athene is the planet Venus even if Neith is. The Indians view the planet Venus as a male and he is not the god of Love. Did they get that wrong or can you explain it?

Similarly, the quote from Diogenes makes no mention of a goddess or goddesses.

Are you saying that Lucifer and Vesper are mortals? Evidence please.

You seem to struggle to follow plain English and common sense. I am saying that the passage you provided in no way mentions a goddess or goddesses. What it does do is to give two epithets for the same planet (Venus). Lucifer and Vesper are neither mortal nor immortal, they are Latin words (adjectives(?)) describing the behaviour of a planet. As I’ve mentioned before, your own quotes don’t even support your assertions, as in this extract from the Pliny quote:

“For when it precedes the day and rises in the morning, it receives the name of Lucifer, as if it were another sun, hastening on the day. On the contrary, when it shines in the west, it is named Vesper, as prolonging the light, and performing the office of the moon”.

He explains exactly what Lucifer and Vesper mean and, note, he uses the word ‘it’, not ‘she’ – he is talking about a planet not a goddess.

If Hephaistos is the planet Mercury, then how do you explain the fact that Hephaistos is always depicted as lame or crippled? And, while you are at it, why Hermes as the messenger of Zeus can go anywhere?

Possibly Hermes is the name of Mercury when it's being tossed around from planet to planet; Hephaistos when it is in it's present orbit.

Do you ever think anything through? If that is the case then why did even the latter ancient Greeks call the planet Mercury and not Hephaistos, given that it had stopped being ‘tossed around from planet to planet’, another assertion for which you have no evidence.
Just to give you, and Moses, some idea of the depth and subtlety of Greek thought on the gods, here are two footnotes from Thomas Taylor’s translation of Critias:

* As, according to the theology of Plato, there is not one father of the universe only, one providence, and one divine law, but many fathers subordinate to the one first father, many administrators of providence posterior to, and comprehended in, the one universal providence of the demiurgus of all things, and many laws proceeding from one first law, it is necessary that there should be different allotments, and a diversity of divine distribution. The allotment, however, of a divine nature is a government exempt from all passivity, and a providential energy about the subjects of its government.

This is what I meant, in an earlier post, about Zeus being Universal Mind.

* Vulcan is that divine power which presides over the spermatic and physical reasons, or productive principles, which the universe contains: for whatever Nature accomplishes by verging towards bodies, Vulcan performs in a divine and exempt manner, by moving Nature, and using her as an instrument in his own proper fabrication; since natural heat has a Vulcanian characteristic, and was produced by Vulcan for the purpose of fabricating a corporeal nature. Vulcan, therefore, is that power which perpetually presides over the fluctuating nature of bodies; and hence, says Olympiodorus, he operates with bellows, which occultly signifies his operating in natures. But by earth we must understand matter, which was thus symbolically denominated by the ancients, as we learn from Porphyry de Antr. Nymph.
By Minerva we must understand the summit of all those intellectual natures that reside in Jupiter, the artificer of the world: or, in other words, she is that deity which illuminates all mundane natures with intelligence.
The Athenians, therefore, who are souls of a Minerval characteristic, may be very properly said to be the progeny of Vulcan and the Earth, because Vulcan, who perpetually imitates the intellectual energy of Minerva in his fabrication of the sensible universe, imparts to them through this imitation those vehicles, and those spermatic reasons, through which in conjunction with matter they become inhabitants of this terrestrial abode.

Both passages from The Works of Plato in Five Volumes, translated by Thomas Taylor, Vol II, p588.
A somewhat less simplistic interpretation than your Vulcan = Mercury and Minerva = Venus. Feel free to explain why Taylor is wrong.

That’s according to the Pelasgians.

There are no Pelasgian works that survived antiquity. Evidence please.

I got that list from my own personal (shambolic) notes but where it originated I have no idea. While no Pelasgian material has come down to us, we still have references in other ancient works. Wherever that list originated it will have been a source which I had judged to be at least worth considering. If you knew your Plato and/or your Homer you would realise that the list could be interpreted to support some of your assertions. But you don’t…

So an angel is an ET?

Correct.

There are tens of thousands of people in Manchester who believe that MCFC will win some silverware this season. I’ll believe it when I see it.

"I wonder if what we now call the UFO reality, and what the Bible calls angels of God, are not the same reality. If this is true, then we humans have a lot of thinking to do." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

"I believe it is time we explored the possibility that UFOs carry the angels of God." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

I seem to recall that in the 70s, on the back of v. Daniken’s books, there were a raft of books exploring this very topic. They all sank faster than Atlantis.

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

Laboratory experiments? Have ancient laboratories been unearthed? That ‘the ancients were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt’s petroglyphs’ is evidenced by that fact that they were drawn by the ancients and not Peratt. ‘Well familiar’ – what sort of English is that? He sounds like a British teenager (I do know who he is). One can also see many similar drawings been done today by young children, none of whom have ever heard of plasma or laboratories.

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud: In other words, it’s hearsay

By your defintion, over 99% of history is heresay. Does that mean it never happened?
Either you believe in history or you don't. I do; obviously you don't.

You seem to use the word ‘believe’ a lot. You also seem to see yourself as an expert at judging people. For the record I have studied history for over 45 years; I own well over 500 books on the subject; and I have a degree in Politics and Contemporary History. Yet again you make yourself look foolish.

"... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

Relevance, aside from him using the word 'believe'? What has the opinion of an engineer in the 1970s, and another Velikovskian(?), got to do with the way Plato uses the characters in his dialogues?

And why did you interpolate 'antarctica' into the passage?

Because Sonchis and Plato's description of Atlantis is a description of Antarctica.

Don’t you believe in geography? Plato describes Atlantis as lying beyond the Pillars of Hercules, as your own quote clearly states. Plato did not describe it as being south of Ethiopia. Are you calling Plato a liar? Plato also describes Atlantis as consisting of several concentric circles separated by a canal network. Does the Antarctic fit this description. And as StefanR has already mentioned, Plato states that Atlantis sank beneath the waves, yet the Antarctic is still there. Are you calling Sonchis and Plato liars again?

If that map is ancient Egyptian then why is it labelled in Latin and why is there a late-medieval European galleon in the top right-hand corner?

You have not provided any evidence.

For what? I’m not claiming that Atlantis was anywhere other than where Plato said it was.

Tautological facts don't require evidence. They are self-evident. Neith is the planet Venus. Since Athena is Neith, therefore Athena is Venus. Very basic logic.

I know what a tautology is but would like to know a ‘tautological fact’ is. I think you are getting mixed up with a syllogism with your example.
That the goddess Neith was viewed by the Egyptians as the goddess of Love does not automatically make her the planet Venus. Similarly, commonalities between Athene and Neith do not automatically mean that Athene is the planet Venus even if Neith is. The Indians view the planet Venus as a male and he is not the god of Love. Did they get that wrong or can you explain it?

Similarly, the quote from Diogenes makes no mention of a goddess or goddesses.

Are you saying that Lucifer and Vesper are mortals? Evidence please.

You seem to struggle to follow plain English and common sense. I am saying that the passage you provided in no way mentions a goddess or goddesses. What it does do is to give two epithets for the same planet (Venus). Lucifer and Vesper are neither mortal nor immortal, they are Latin words (adjectives(?)) describing the behaviour of a planet. As I’ve mentioned before, your own quotes don’t even support your assertions, as in this extract from the Pliny quote:

“For when it precedes the day and rises in the morning, it receives the name of Lucifer, as if it were another sun, hastening on the day. On the contrary, when it shines in the west, it is named Vesper, as prolonging the light, and performing the office of the moon”.

He explains exactly what Lucifer and Vesper mean and, note, he uses the word ‘it’, not ‘she’ – he is talking about a planet not a goddess.

If Hephaistos is the planet Mercury, then how do you explain the fact that Hephaistos is always depicted as lame or crippled? And, while you are at it, why Hermes as the messenger of Zeus can go anywhere?

Possibly Hermes is the name of Mercury when it's being tossed around from planet to planet; Hephaistos when it is in it's present orbit.

Do you ever think anything through? If that is the case then why did even the latter ancient Greeks call the planet Mercury and not Hephaistos, given that it had stopped being ‘tossed around from planet to planet’, another assertion for which you have no evidence.
Just to give you, and Moses, some idea of the depth and subtlety of Greek thought on the gods, here are two footnotes from Thomas Taylor’s translation of Critias:

* As, according to the theology of Plato, there is not one father of the universe only, one providence, and one divine law, but many fathers subordinate to the one first father, many administrators of providence posterior to, and comprehended in, the one universal providence of the demiurgus of all things, and many laws proceeding from one first law, it is necessary that there should be different allotments, and a diversity of divine distribution. The allotment, however, of a divine nature is a government exempt from all passivity, and a providential energy about the subjects of its government.

This is what I meant, in an earlier post, about Zeus being Universal Mind.

* Vulcan is that divine power which presides over the spermatic and physical reasons, or productive principles, which the universe contains: for whatever Nature accomplishes by verging towards bodies, Vulcan performs in a divine and exempt manner, by moving Nature, and using her as an instrument in his own proper fabrication; since natural heat has a Vulcanian characteristic, and was produced by Vulcan for the purpose of fabricating a corporeal nature. Vulcan, therefore, is that power which perpetually presides over the fluctuating nature of bodies; and hence, says Olympiodorus, he operates with bellows, which occultly signifies his operating in natures. But by earth we must understand matter, which was thus symbolically denominated by the ancients, as we learn from Porphyry de Antr. Nymph.
By Minerva we must understand the summit of all those intellectual natures that reside in Jupiter, the artificer of the world: or, in other words, she is that deity which illuminates all mundane natures with intelligence.
The Athenians, therefore, who are souls of a Minerval characteristic, may be very properly said to be the progeny of Vulcan and the Earth, because Vulcan, who perpetually imitates the intellectual energy of Minerva in his fabrication of the sensible universe, imparts to them through this imitation those vehicles, and those spermatic reasons, through which in conjunction with matter they become inhabitants of this terrestrial abode.

Both passages from The Works of Plato in Five Volumes, translated by Thomas Taylor, Vol II, p588.
A somewhat less simplistic interpretation than your Vulcan = Mercury and Minerva = Venus. Feel free to explain why Taylor is wrong. And again, there is nothing in either of those two Taylor quotaions which would would surprise a Taoist or Brahmin, ancient or modern, nor an ancient Egyptian or Mesoamerican, as a few examples.

That’s according to the Pelasgians.

There are no Pelasgian works that survived antiquity. Evidence please.

I got that list from my own personal (shambolic) notes but where it originated I have no idea. While no Pelasgian material has come down to us, we still have references in other ancient works. Wherever that list originated it will have been a source which I had judged to be at least worth considering. If you knew your Plato and/or your Homer you would realise that the list could be interpreted to support some of your assertions. But you don’t…

So an angel is an ET?

Correct.

There are tens of thousands of people in Manchester who believe that MCFC will win some silverware this season. I’ll believe it when I see it.

"I wonder if what we now call the UFO reality, and what the Bible calls angels of God, are not the same reality. If this is true, then we humans have a lot of thinking to do." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

"I believe it is time we explored the possibility that UFOs carry the angels of God." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

I seem to recall that in the 70s, on the back of v. Daniken’s books, there were a raft of books exploring this very topic. They all sank faster than Atlantis.

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

Laboratory experiments? Have ancient laboratories been unearthed? That ‘the ancients were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt’s petroglyphs’ is evidenced by that fact that they were drawn by the ancients and not Peratt. ‘Well familiar’ – what sort of English is that? He sounds like a British teenager (and I do know who he is). One can also see many similar drawings been done today by young children, none of whom have ever heard of plasma or laboratories.

[Total Science]

If you can point them out for me, please, I would be very grateful

I refer you to the customarily ignored authors referenced above.

I did a wordsearch here
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html
But no diaries, are you sure?

"Solon, who was intending to use the tale [of Antarctica] for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child." -- Plato, philosopher, Critias, 360 B.C.

[Siggy_G]

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

Laboratory experiments? Have ancient laboratories been unearthed? That ‘the ancients were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt’s petroglyphs’ is evidenced by that fact that they were drawn by the ancients and not Peratt. ‘Well familiar’ – what sort of English is that? He sounds like a British teenager (I do know who he is). One can also see many similar drawings been done today by young children, none of whom have ever heard of plasma or laboratories.

Is that original quote correct? Doesn't he mean to compare the ancient figures with today's laboratory experiments? (Stating that the ancients possessed plasma laboratories seems far fetched, and without any archeological evidence)

The point of the hypothesis as presented in "Symbols of an Alien Sky" by David Talbot, is that enormous electrical discharges were displayed in the sky, due to the bypassing planet and Earth interacting electrically. The discharges would at that time (hypothesized some 10.000 - 2.000 BC) display such patterns in the sky, in the same way as they evidently do today in laboratories. The ancients, astonished by these events, replicated these entities with respect on cave walls and as stone inscriptions. The hypothesis points to the earliest cave paintings being slightly more naturalistic painted (humans hunting buffaloes etc.) while a fairly sudden, and global, transition went onto depicting symmetrical straw men and octopus like figures... Of course, abstract depictions and symbolic icons exist, but it is surely a very interesting curiosity why so many global archetypes suddenly point to such abstract figures. Figures that don't correlate to any natural events today whatsoever. As stories about these extreme events, and planets at close view, were retold through generations, they were gradually transited into more human like (i.e. graspable) figures; like they are indicated in the myths and religions we know today.

[Of course, religions have been further polluted by human interpretation and abuse, for the sake of channeling power and resources up along the enforced pyramidal structure of societies]

In short.

[Grey Cloud]

Petroglyphs in the news:
Petroglyphs in Southeast Alaska
http://capitalcityweekly.com/stories/11 ... 3635.shtml
No mention of a plasma lab though.

[Siggy_G]

Petroglyphs in Southeast Alaska (...)

Interesting. But, circular shapes = salmon eyes and their soul... Well, that's their interpretation, not any definite answer.

I'd say though, that the plasma discharge pattern hypothesis still refers to a set of selective images. There exist many petroglyphs, of various age, that depicts simplified humans and animals. It is also evident, based on observations of more primal cultures, that they have high respect for ancestors and assumes gods/souls for several entities in nature.

However, the hypothesis emphasizes many of the images where the symbolism is unexplained and not related to any natural entities as we know of today. Also, these images indicate circular hovering shapes, branching or multiple arms/tentacles, symmetrical dots by figure's waist, dragon archetype globally associated with fire or lightening etc.

No mention of a plasma lab though.

Heh, yeah, obviously.

[Grey Cloud]

Siggy_G wrote:

I'd say though, that the plasma discharge pattern hypothesis still refers to a set of selective images. There exist many petroglyphs, of various age, that depicts simplified humans and animals. It is also evident, based on observations of more primal cultures, that they have high respect for ancestors and assumes gods/souls for several entities in nature.

Couldn't agree more.