Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Geezer

Proof of the Last Extinction Event 12980 years ago.

Recommended Posts

I was painting classrooms one summer and went through the entire astrotheology series from MP Hall. That content has a little cross over here, too, because it was pointed out that when Plato was referring to the gods of greek mythology and recounting the drama's associated with the supernatural elements surrounding the Atlantis myth, he was referring to greek astrotheological or astromythological allegories pertaining to the sun and celestial objects. In short, allegory about a remembered account of a meteor type event in the past which came in from the direction of the sun. In the form of astrological allegory about the goings on of the celestial gods. 

 

That starts up at 1:07 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ANEw0g_M7k&t=7705s

 

 

I'm starting to think that the issue with Solon is probably that stories were passed down about cataclysm. They involved things coming down from the sky. They seem to have passed down by way of astromythological allegory in style and form. Plato, then, could have decided to take these allegorical stories and work them into a type of moral lesson because it's easy to do so when it comes to a civilization being struck down. You can use it to warn people about doing this or that, or behaving this or that way, "or else." 

 

This would be like taking something like Katrina 9,000 years later and using it as a base model for a decorated content lesson about morality, if the world was wiped down to a mad max style post apocalyptic state following a nuclear war or something like that. And stories passed down about things that had taken place in the distance past through oral tradition. Skeptics in the future could claim that the story of Katrina (maybe by then Katrina would be described as a goddess and not a natural cyclone) was entirely whole cloth made up. If there were no other written accounts, just oral tradition. After all, there's no real goddesses flying around doing things. But that would be completely besides the point, because the truth would have been that the mythological aspect of oral tradition was flowered and decorated around an actual natural cataclysm that has nothing to do with gods or fate, or morality in any literal sense. And in so doing, a truth would have been missed in the process of throwing the "baby out with the bath water," as they are suggesting in the linked video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I was painting classrooms one summer and went through the entire astrotheology series from MP Hall. That content has a little cross over here, too, because it was pointed out that when Plato was referring to the gods of greek mythology and recounting the drama's associated with the supernatural elements surrounding the Atlantis myth, he was referring to greek astrotheological or astromythological allegories pertaining to the sun and celestial objects. In short, allegory about a remembered account of a meteor type event in the past which came in from the direction of the sun. In the form of astrological allegory about the goings on of the celestial gods. 

 

That starts up at 1:07 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ANEw0g_M7k&t=7705s

 

 

I'm starting to think that the issue with Solon is probably that stories were passed down about cataclysm. They involved things coming down from the sky. They seem to have passed down by way of astromythological allegory in style and form. Plato, then, could have decided to take these allegorical stories and work them into a type of moral lesson because it's easy to do so when it comes to a civilization being struck down. You can use it to warn people about doing this or that, or behaving this or that way, "or else." 

     So you're saying that Plato was being euhemeristic?  He did use this method even though we actually attribute it to Euhemerus.  Although I don't really see any sign of it.  He doesn't try to attribute any naturalistic explanation to the fantastic tale he weaves.  As such it is we who are being euhemeristic in this case.  Trying to eek out some kernel of truth, or reality, from this story.

 

     Plato, on the other hand, was also known to have introduced us the the idea of the noble lie.  So, while he held some disdain for the stories of poets since they were essentially lies he also claimed that lying to a people for their own well-being may well be acceptable.  The example he provides is one of an origin story.  Strangely enough we're provided with another origin story here.

 

     He does tend to use the Socratic method of asking questions and eventually never really providing answers but in the context of what we have it doesn't appear that an euhemeristic path is what we were on here.

 

     That all said I took a quick look at a brief section of the video trying to sort all this out but I guess I didn't find any of this.  They just seemed to ask questions.  What if we had the texts from this civilization or that?  Imagine what we might know?  That wishful thinking amounts to and contributes nothing.

 

     I also came across where they discuss the glacial Lake Missoula as if it's some great mystery.  Just Google it or try Wikipedia.  I learned about such things 25 years ago in my geology courses in college.  There are a number of these places.  My geology lab teacher brought slides he took from such sites for us to look at.  They were giant, but most importantly local (even though the area was very large), regions where flooding occurred.  The explanation was the water was deposited during the glacial period.  When temps warmed the water would melt at various rates.  This would mean some would simply run-off and some would pool.  In this case it became a massive lake.  But there was still some of the ice holding the water back like a dam and so when this finally gives way you get the sudden, and catastrophic, flooding in this areas.  The water then does what water does.  It flows out.  It finds its own level.  It may well form another lake, or series or lakes, as it does its thing.  But it's not really a mystery.  The only real disagreement people have had over these things was when they believed there was a single biblical flood and ideas like these challenged them.  Nowadays that is less of an issue.

 

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This would be like taking something like Katrina 9,000 years later and using it as a base model for a decorated content lesson about morality, if the world was wiped down to a mad max style post apocalyptic state following a nuclear war or something like that. And stories passed down about things that had taken place in the distance past through oral tradition. Skeptics in the future could claim that the story of Katrina (maybe by then Katrina would be described as a goddess and not a natural cyclone) was entirely whole cloth made up. If there were no other written accounts, just oral tradition. After all, there's no real goddesses flying around doing things. But that would be completely besides the point, because the truth would have been that the mythological aspect of oral tradition was flowered and decorated around an actual natural cataclysm that has nothing to do with gods or fate, or morality in any literal sense. And in so doing, a truth would have been missed in the process of throwing the "baby out with the bath water," as they are suggesting in the linked video. 

     Again, this is just euhemerism.  Funny thing is I recall Euhemerus making up a story to make his point about this who kernel of truth thing.  Something about finding some island where he found some folks worshiping the gods just right but on that same island he found a list that showed every god was really just a dead old human and nothing special except through folklore.  How serendipitous.

 

     I have no issue with historical allegory (or attempts at euhemerism).  I fully accept the Revelation is an example of such a text.  I believe books like Genesis are similar in nature.  These are forms of, but not literal, history.  But they have to be tempered with what we know as opposed to what we don't know or what we wish we knew. 

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Euhemerism has different applications. I suppose the basic and broad kernel of truth sense would apply here. But I generally apply the term in the way that Carrier and mythicists do where the suggestion is that the gods or godmen were once historical figures who were later deified. In this case, that's not the point. The gods they are discussing are celestial bodies, not historical men. And Plato, according to the linked section, said as much. So the idea is that Plato set up the story of Atlantis after having first given a introduction about the celestial bodies in an allegory about then falling to earth. There's no greek name Atlantis inscribed in Egypt, but going over more of this I have another clip to quote here about the temple at Edfu, the relevant section starting at 58:00 below: 

 

 

I've been following the ancient technology and high civilization thing for around 15 years now. Different people seem to go in different directions and I've been dismissive about a lot of it. Especially where the claims go in the direction of (1) biblical proponents trying to use flood evidence for Noah's global flood and (2) New Age kooks saying that it was all an alien civilization or that the technology was more advanced than our current technology. So there's little reason to get into either of those two directions because that's not what this discussion is about. I have dismissive towards Hancock for years (while listening to Buvual and Shoch) because I thought he was mixed up in the latter two issues. After going over a lot of his work recently I realize that I had misjudged the situation. 

 

One reason this content is interesting is that it's another avenue that refutes Noah's global flood and put's it into it's mythological context as a "copy cat" rendition of the older flood myths that date to non-global floods that happened at different times in the past, do to glacial ice melts and other factors. This shows how massive flooding did occur in localized areas due to things like the proposed impact on the north American ice sheet that was some 2 miles thick. Causing rapid melting. And which had effects through the rest of the northern hemisphere per the maps illustrated. 

 

The other reason that it's interesting is that the issue of advanced technology has been hashed out to refer only to technology that goes along with the ability to build these megalithic sites, some 7,000 years before our recognition of the ability to build megalithic sites. They weren't using cranes and driving automobiles or flying around in UFO's, according to evidence, but they sure as hell were raising up massive stone monuments in Turkey - having only uncovered a small fraction of what's still under the ground to discover. It just basically pushes dates back on our timeline understanding of history. That's enough to piss some people off, though. It seems to open the door to all variety of quackery, but taken in context it doesn't have to. I prefer to understand the landscape of what's being suggested. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Euhemerism has different applications. I suppose the basic and broad kernel of truth sense would apply here. But I generally apply the term in the way that Carrier and mythicists do where the suggestion is that the gods or godmen were once historical figures who were later deified. In this case, that's not the point. The gods they are discussing are celestial bodies, not historical men. And Plato, according to the linked section, said as much. So the idea is that Plato set up the story of Atlantis after having first given a introduction about the celestial bodies in an allegory about then falling to earth. There's no greek name Atlantis inscribed in Egypt, but going over more of this I have another clip to quote here about the temple at Edfu, the relevant section starting at 58:00 below: 

     Where is this said?  I've listened to a bit of the show and I didn't hear it.  I don't have much time so you'll have to point it out to me.

 

     I'm not I understand your issue with euhemerism.  I'd have to check but one example Plato(?) used was a story of a girl at some ocean cliffs being carried away by the gods but perhaps she was really just blown off by the winds?

 

40 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

I've been following the ancient technology and high civilization thing for around 15 years now. Different people seem to go in different directions and I've been dismissive about a lot of it. Especially where the claims go in the direction of (1) biblical proponents trying to use flood evidence for Noah's global flood and (2) New Age kooks saying that it was all an alien civilization or that the technology was more advanced than our current technology. So there's little reason to get into either of those two directions because that's not what this discussion is about. I have dismissive towards Hancock for years (while listening to Buvual and Shoch) because I thought he was mixed up in the latter two issues. After going over a lot of his work recently I realize that I had misjudged the situation. 

 

One reason this content is interesting is that it's another avenue that refutes Noah's global flood and put's it into it's mythological context as a "copy cat" rendition of the older flood myths that date to non-global floods that happened at different times in the past, do to glacial ice melts and other factors. This shows how massive flooding did occur in localized areas due to things like the proposed impact on the north American ice sheet that was some 2 miles thick. Causing rapid melting. And which had effects through the rest of the northern hemisphere per the maps illustrated. 

 

The other reason that it's interesting is that the issue of advanced technology has been hashed out to refer only to technology that goes along with the ability to build these megalithic sites, some 7,000 years before our recognition of the ability to build megalithic sites. They weren't using cranes and driving automobiles or flying around in UFO's, according to evidence, but they sure as hell were raising up massive stone monuments in Turkey - having only uncovered a small fraction of what's still under the ground to discover. It just basically pushes dates back on our timeline understanding of history. That's enough to piss some people off, though. It seems to open the door to all variety of quackery, but taken in context it doesn't have to. I prefer to understand the landscape of what's being suggested. 

 

     I would have to look into Edfu specifically.  I do know that the Egyptians have a number of different creation stories.  The only real connection between them is a mound coming from water.  It seems convenient to focus on the whole issue of  water in these stories but this overlooks the other issues where other things require creation like the sun, moon and stars.  Even if we concede the entire planet was somehow lost to a flood, covered whole, and the saving grace was a now dry area of land each and every myth seems to have conveniently forgotten the entire sky above and all it contains remained and should have been a some sort of constant for these same survivors to see them through yet require creation.

 

     Might I suggest a site such as this for Gobekli Tepi as opposed to YouTube?

 

           mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

Where is this said?  I've listened to a bit of the show and I didn't hear it.  I don't have much time so you'll have to point it out to me.

 

You can start at the 1:08 mark on the below link. 

 

3 hours ago, mwc said:

 

At 1:09 Randall Carlson chimes in about the Timaeus and then lays out the astromythological stuff about celestial objects symbolized by the Greek gods. This isn't a long exchange but it's part of a near 4 hr pod cast. So I'd start with the 1:08 mark then follow it through. 

 

1 hour ago, mwc said:

I would have to look into Edfu specifically.  I do know that the Egyptians have a number of different creation stories.  The only real connection between them is a mound coming from water.  It seems convenient to focus on the whole issue of  water in these stories but this overlooks the other issues where other things require creation like the sun, moon and stars.  Even if we concede the entire planet was somehow lost to a flood, covered whole, and the saving grace was a now dry area of land each and every myth seems to have conveniently forgotten the entire sky above and all it contains remained and should have been a some sort of constant for these same survivors to see them through yet require creation.

 

The Edfu story is roughly what Solon would have been informed about by the priest from the walls of Sais, from what Hancock is saying in the video. That opens a deeper look into what may have been the Egyptian source material that would have passed down from Solon to Plato. Atlantis being a Greek name for the story of a civilization that went down some 9,000 years earlier and who's survivors informed the original building in Egypt. Possibly the people who originally built a lion sphinx back when rain erosion would have been a possibility. And out of which could have come those who informed the building in Turkey from the same general periods. 

 

I've basically been sat back watching the various evidences roll in for the last 15 years curiously waiting to see if it eventually sways mainstream academia at some point. I don't know for what purpose other than keeping an open mind and a close eye on various developments in the truth seeking process. Hancock seems intent on wanting more attention paid to asteroids and comets and better funding going in those directions. That doesn't seem like a radical request. As it stands we're already keeping close eyes on that between government astronomers as well as amateurs around the world. Aside from the last extinction issue, everyone's well aware of the fact that the earth has been hit and is subject to being hit again by celestial debris. Hopefully our technology could deflect future impacts and our civilization will not fall like those in the past appear to have done, at least on low Islands and low level coastlines. 

 

I think the real issue driving Hancock is more getting recognition by the mainstream after having to fight tooth and nail for so long against all variety of nay saying. He wants justification for the scientists who sacrificed their good standing among peers by fighting for these various issues about impact and flood damage. And recognition that there's a problem with orthodoxy in science creating a situation where it's not favorable or beneficial to get out there and figure out where we've gone wrong in certain areas. He's saying that sort of out of the box thinking should be encouraged with grant money and promoted instead of fought tooth and nail and ridiculed. I somewhat agree there, cautiously however. They can't very well hand out money to every kook and crack pot who comes along. There's a fine line between promising new directions and crack pot theories. 

 

Anyhow, I'll continue monitoring the situation. And read your link in the process. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You can start at the 1:08 mark on the below link. 

 

 

At 1:09 Randall Carlson chimes in about the Timaeus and then lays out the astromythological stuff about celestial objects symbolized by the Greek gods. This isn't a long exchange but it's part of a near 4 hr pod cast. So I'd start with the 1:08 mark then follow it through. 

     Okay.  So they weave a far more elaborate telling than what is actually in the Timaeus.  Here's what is there:



He replied:-In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them. To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour; he asked the priests who were most skilful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old. On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened. Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.

 

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us. 

 

When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient. 

     Sounds great.  Like he has some real answers.  But why?  How is it that Egypt is somehow exempt from worldwide calamity?  The fact that the Nile floods from Ethiopian rains (not that they seem to understand this) makes it so?  Not if people lived in low areas and all water levels rose dramatically world wide.  Then we'd see similar problems everywhere.  That's the argument as to why we see the same sort of stories everywhere.  But this guy claims otherwise.  Egypt is the exception.

 

     Then he continues:



The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children. In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven. 

     This all leads into the noble lie.

 

      From The Republic:



I agree with you, he said. How then may we devise one of those needful falsehoods of which we lately spoke --just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city?

 

What sort of lie? he said.

 

Nothing new, I replied; only an old Phoenician tale of what has often occurred before now in other places, (as the poets say, and have made the world believe,) though not in our time, and I do not know whether such an event could ever happen again, or could now even be made probable, if it did.

 

How your words seem to hesitate on your lips!

You will not wonder, I replied, at my hesitation when you have heard. Speak, he said, and fear not.

 

Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you in the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so, their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers.

 

You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the lie which you were going to tell.

 

True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxillaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their off spring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?

 

Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them.

 

I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a belief will make them care more for the city and for one another. Enough, however, of the fiction, which may now fly abroad upon the wings of rumour, while we arm our earth-born heroes, and lead them forth under the command of their rulers. Let them look round and select a spot whence they can best suppress insurrection, if any prove refractory within, and also defend themselves against enemies, who like wolves may come down on the fold from without; there let them encamp, and when they have encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper Gods and prepare their dwellings.

     This particular lie is tailored for what he's talking about in The Republic but the concept is very much the same.  The idea of borrowing from a foreign story in order to manipulate the local population to foster a sort of civic loyalty.  This is the same pattern we see in the Atlantis tale.

 

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The Edfu story is roughly what Solon would have been informed about by the priest from the walls of Sais, from what Hancock is saying in the video. That opens a deeper look into what may have been the Egyptian source material that would have passed down from Solon to Plato. Atlantis being a Greek name for the story of a civilization that went down some 9,000 years earlier and who's survivors informed the original building in Egypt. Possibly the people who originally built a lion sphinx back when rain erosion would have been a possibility. And out of which could have come those who informed the building in Turkey from the same general periods. 

     I posted the source material.  It is from Plato.  I'm not sure why the idea of having second sources is easy grasp when it comes to the bible but is not so easy in this context.  We have a single source here.  It is Plato.  There is no other source that relates this story or can confirm Solon or the Egyptians knowing this story.  It is Plato's story.  He is the one and only source.  If anyone else was aware of it or sourced it this is not knowledge we possess.

 

     The Egyptians talk of zep tepi(?) which is just a name for a primeval mound.  These are not the same thing.  This would be the equivalent of saying the primeval earth that is mentioned in Genesis 1 is also Atlantis.

 

     Or maybe connecting the Sphinx with anything like Turkey with an utter lack of evidence is a grave fallacy that should be avoided?

 

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I've basically been sat back watching the various evidences roll in for the last 15 years curiously waiting to see if it eventually sways mainstream academia at some point. I don't know for what purpose other than keeping an open mind and a close eye on various developments in the truth seeking process. Hancock seems intent on wanting more attention paid to asteroids and comets and better funding going in those directions. That doesn't seem like a radical request. As it stands we're already keeping close eyes on that between government astronomers as well as amateurs around the world. Aside from the last extinction issue, everyone's well aware of the fact that the earth has been hit and is subject to being hit again by celestial debris. Hopefully our technology could deflect future impacts and our civilization will not fall like those in the past appear to have done, at least on low Islands and low level coastlines. 

     There's currently no evidence that past civilizations were ever felled by impact events.  All we have at this point is a lot of speculation on every front.  The idea that there was an impact event ~12000 years is pure speculation.  The idea that there was any sort of population that we might consider a civilization is pure speculation.   Past events, like what happened to the dinosaurs, are only good for creating scenarios but they're not evidence that something actually did happen.

 

     The version of Phaethon that they seem to be using is Ovid so here is the relevant part Ovid:



And now they climb to highest heaven, now plunge sheer in breakneck descent down to the earth. Luna (the Moon) [Selene] with wonder sees her brother's team running below her own; the scalding clouds steam; the parched fields crack deep, all moisture dried, and every summit flames; the calcined meads lie white; the leaf dies burning with the bough and the dry corn its own destruction feeds. These are but trifles. Mighty cities burn with all their ramparts; realms and nations turn to ashes; mountains with their forests blaze. Athos is burning, Oete is on fire, and Tmolus and proud Taurus Cilix and the crest of Ide, dry whose springs were once so famed, and virgin Helicon and Haemus, still unknown, unhonoured. Aetne burns immense in twofold conflagration; Eryx flames and Othrys and Parnasos' double peaks; Cynthus and Dindyma and Mycale and Rhodope, losing at last her snows, and Mimas and Cithaeron's holy hill. Caucasus burns; the frosts of Scythia fail in her need; Pindus and Ossa blaze and, lordlier than both, Olympus flames and the airy Alpes and cloud-capped Appeninus.
Then Phaethon saw the world on every side ablaze--heat more that he could bear. He breathed vapours that burned like furnace-blasts, and felt the chariot glow white-hot beneath his feet. Cinders and sparks past bearing shoot and swirl and scorching smoke surrounds him; in the murk, the midnight murk, he knows not where he is or goes; the horses whirl him where they will. The Aethiopes (Ethiopians) then turned black, so men believe, as heat summoned their blood too near the skin. Then was Libya's dusty desert [i.e. the Sahara] formed, all water scorched away. Then the sad Nymphae (Nymphs) bewailed their pools and springs; Boeotia mourned her Dirce lost, Argos Amymone, Ephyre Pirene; nor were Flumina (Rivers) [Potamoi] safe though fortune's favour made them broad and deep and their banks far apart; in middle stream from old Peneus rose the drifting steam, from Erymanthus Phegaicus too and swift Ismenos, and Caicus Teuthranius and the Tanais; Maeander playing on his winding way; tawny Lycormas, Xanthus doomed to burn at Troy a second time; Melas Mygdonius, that sable stream; the pride of Eurotas Taenarius. Eurphrates Babylonius burned, Phasis, Hister [Danube] and Ganges were on fire, Orontes burned and racing Thermodon; Alpheus boiled, fire scorched Spercheus' banks. The gold that Tagus carried in his sands ran molten in the flames, and all the swans that used to charm the Maeonian banks with song huddled in mid Cayster sweltering. The Nilus (Nile) in terror to the world's end fled and his head, still hidden; this seven mouths gaped dusty, seven vales without a stream. The same disaster dried the Ismarian rivers, Hebrus and Strymon, dried the lordly flow of the Hesperian waters, Rhodanus (Rhode) and Rhenus (Rhine) and Padus (Po), and Thybris (Tiber), promised empire of the world. Earth everywhere splits deep and light strikes down into Tartara (the Underworld) and fills with fear Hell's Monarch (Rex Infernus) [Haides] and his consort [Persephone]; the wide seas shrink and where ocean lay a wilderness of dry sand spread; new peaks and ranges rise, long covered by the deep, and multiply the scattered islands of the Cyclades. The fishes dive, the dolphins dare no leap their curving course through the familiar air, and lifeless seals float supine on the waves; even Nereus, fathoms down, in his dark caves, with Doris and her daughters [the Nereides], felt the fire. Thrice from the waters Neptunus [Poseidon] raised his arm and frowning face; thrice fled the fiery air.
But Mother Tellus (Earth) [Gaia], encompassed by the seas, between the ocean and her shrinking streams, that cowered for refuge in her lightless womb, lifted her smothered head and raised her hand to shield her tortured face; then with a quake, a mighty tremor that convulsed the world, sinking in shallow subsidence below her wonted place, in solemn tones appealed : ‘If this thy pleasure and my due, why now, Supreme God (Summus Deum) [Zeus], lie thy dread lightnings still? If fire destroy me, let the fire be thine: my doom were lighter dealt by thy design! Scarce can my throat find voice to speak’ the smoke and heat were choking her. ‘See my singed hair! Ash in my eyes, ash on my lips so deep! Are these the fruits of my fertility? Is this for duty done the due return? That I endure the wounds of pick and plough, year-long unceasing pain, that I supply grass for the flocks and crops, sweet sustenance, for humankind and incense for you gods? But, grant my doom deserved, what have the seas deserved and shat they brother? Why shrinks that main, his charge, and form the sky so far recoils? And if no grace can save they brother now, nor me, pity thine own fair sky! Look round! See, each pole smokes; if there the fire should gain, your royal roofs will fall. Even Atlas fails, his shoulders scarce sustain the flaming sky. If land and sea, if heaven's high palaces perish, prime chaos will us all confound! Save from the flames whatever's still alive, and prove you mean Creation to survive!’


Tellus (Earth) [Gaia] could speak no more, nor more endure the fiery heat and vapour, and sank back to her deep caverns next the Manes (Ghosts of the Underworld). But the Almighty Father (Pater Omnipotens) [Zeus], calling the gods and him who gave the chariot to attest creation doomed were now his aid not given, mounted the highest citadel of heaven, whence he was wont to veil the lands with clouds and roll his thunders and his lightnings hurl. But then no clouds had he the lands to veil, nor rain to send from heaven to soothe their pain. He thundered; and poising high his bolt to blast, struck Phaethon from the chariot and from life, and fire extinguished fire and flame quenched flame. The horses in wild panic leapt apart, burst from the traces and flung off the yoke, there lies the reins, the sundered axle there, here the spokes dangle from a shattered wheel, and far and wide the signs of wreckage fly. And Phaethon, flames ravaging his auburn hair, falls headlong down, a streaming trail of light, as sometimes through the cloudless vault of night a star, though never falling, seems to fall. Eridanus receives him, far from home, in his wide waters half a world away. And bathes his burning face.
The Naides Hesperiae (Hesperian Naiads) bury his smouldering body in a tomb and on a stone engrave this epitaph : ‘Here Phaethon lies, his father's charioteer; great was his fall, yet did he greatly dare.’ His father, sick with grief, had hidden his face, shrouded in misery, an, if the tale is true, one day went by without the Sun. The flaming fires gave light--some gain at least in that disaster. 

     The whole thing causes massive, intercontinental, fire damage.  A scale that should be rather easy to see with some easy research.  The story offers plenty of specific place names to look at even.  So not just some fire in North America.  Even using a euhemeristic approach the idea here should be easy to see that whoever is telling this story is saying fires were just everywhere and were responsible for massive and widespread droughts (including the drying of the Sahara).  But is the timing right?  This article would say it is probably not.  So a euhemerist look at the story that reports the destruction of the Sahara would post-date the proposed dating of the comet, the resulting fires and floods.

 

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I think the real issue driving Hancock is more getting recognition by the mainstream after having to fight tooth and nail for so long against all variety of nay saying. He wants justification for the scientists who sacrificed their good standing among peers by fighting for these various issues about impact and flood damage. And recognition that there's a problem with orthodoxy in science creating a situation where it's not favorable or beneficial to get out there and figure out where we've gone wrong in certain areas. He's saying that sort of out of the box thinking should be encouraged with grant money and promoted instead of fought tooth and nail and ridiculed. I somewhat agree there, cautiously however. They can't very well hand out money to every kook and crack pot who comes along. There's a fine line between promising new directions and crack pot theories. 

     I don't care about his personal plea.  I imagine he's making more money on this path than he would have being some sociologist or journalist.  He just tries pseudo-science like the whole Orion pyramid mess.  There's very little reason to take him seriously.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mwc said:

Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children. In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven. 

 

The only point to this exchange seems to be that the Egyptian considers the Greeks less ancient, with less knowledge of the past than the Egyptians. And that makes sense considering the stone carved records dating back to Zep Tepi and all that went into the Egyptians record keeping. I know that cyclic time was a thing back then and they were aware of past civilizations being wiped out more than once. The Yuga's and the Metalic Greek precession age systems were employed at some point, and then the HIndu's expanded upon the precession cycle until they built the cycles way out to millions and billions of years by continuing to add numbers to precession. It sounds like the Egyptian had a similar view, but was biased to his own way of thinking. 

 

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

This particular lie is tailored for what he's talking about in The Republic but the concept is very much the same.  The idea of borrowing from a foreign story in order to manipulate the local population to foster a sort of civic loyalty.  This is the same pattern we see in the Atlantis tale.

 

Is that the main reason that academics have decided that Atlantis was made up whole cloth? 

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

The whole thing causes massive, intercontinental, fire damage.  A scale that should be rather easy to see with some easy research.  The story offers plenty of specific place names to look at even.  So not just some fire in North America.  Even using a euhemeristic approach the idea here should be easy to see that whoever is telling this story is saying fires were just everywhere and were responsible for massive and widespread droughts (including the drying of the Sahara).  But is the timing right?  This article would say it is probably not.  So a euhemerist look at the story that reports the destruction of the Sahara would post-date the proposed dating of the comet, the resulting fires and floods.

 

Shoch goes into the fire issue with various evidence. The timelines they discuss in these pod casts range from around 12,800 through around 11,600 years ago with multiple impact issues and the solar mass ejection issues, I believe, around the end. But this puts together what Hancock is talking about with what Shock is talking about elsewhere. 

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

There's currently no evidence that past civilizations were ever felled by impact events.  All we have at this point is a lot of speculation on every front.  The idea that there was an impact event ~12000 years is pure speculation.  The idea that there was any sort of population that we might consider a civilization is pure speculation.   Past events, like what happened to the dinosaurs, are only good for creating scenarios but they're not evidence that something actually did happen.

 

That's the point of the pod casts - showing the growing number of evidence that does exist and cautioning people not believe claims like you've made above. And also the claims that this is all refuted because the refutation claims have been refuted in return. That's the main issue being discussed throughout. 

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

 I posted the source material.  It is from Plato.  I'm not sure why the idea of having second sources is easy grasp when it comes to the bible but is not so easy in this context.  We have a single source here.  It is Plato.  There is no other source that relates this story or can confirm Solon or the Egyptians knowing this story.  It is Plato's story.  He is the one and only source.  If anyone else was aware of it or sourced it this is not knowledge we possess.

 

I don't know how important this is aside from differences in opinion. Some think he made it up and seem content to hold ground there. Other's think he did inherit some information about a past calamity and made a poetic piece about it. I don't see how either side can prove their opinion. It's not different than the Jesus myth in that way. Some like the myth route others do not. Proving it is impossible. So we're left each with our own opinions in the end about two choices, neither of which come with contemporary evidence to settle the issue once and for all.

 

4 hours ago, mwc said:

I don't care about his personal plea.  I imagine he's making more money on this path than he would have being some sociologist or journalist.  He just tries pseudo-science like the whole Orion pyramid mess.  There's very little reason to take him seriously.

 

He is making a living doing these lectures. I'm not as dismissive of Hancock as I once was. I don't think the Orion correlation theory is psuedo science, nor archaeo-astronomy in general. I know too much about how the "as above so below" axiom played out in ancient cultures. It's pretty obvious that they were trying to lay out on the ground what they observed in the sky in a lot of these cases. The controversy comes from when the celestial layout dates to before people think these cultures were there. But even then, it's possible that they were back dated to revere times in the distant past because they knew how to reverse the cycles and what an ancient sky would have looked like compared to the contemporary sky of their respective times. There's a whole lot going there. The main thing is that I know these guys are carrying the burden of evidence so that's what I'm watching play out. The skeptics don't have to prove that no impacts ever happened, the proponents have to show that they did or that it's the best conclusion given the evidence that they can show. And that's what Carlson and Hancock are attempting to do in these pod casts and with their cited articles. 

 

@Geezer

 

Are you following this anymore? I think the two pod casts I've linked are the one's you referred to from Rogan with Carlson and Hancock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The only point to this exchange seems to be that the Egyptian considers the Greeks less ancient, with less knowledge of the past than the Egyptians. And that makes sense considering the stone carved records dating back to Zep Tepi and all that went into the Egyptians record keeping. I know that cyclic time was a thing back then and they were aware of past civilizations being wiped out more than once. The Yuga's and the Metalic Greek precession age systems were employed at some point, and then the HIndu's expanded upon the precession cycle until they built the cycles way out to millions and billions of years by continuing to add numbers to precession. It sounds like the Egyptian had a similar view, but was biased to his own way of thinking. 

 

 

 

Is that the main reason that academics have decided that Atlantis was made up whole cloth? 

 

 

Shoch goes into the fire issue with various evidence. The timelines they discuss in these pod casts range from around 12,800 through around 11,600 years ago with multiple impact issues and the solar mass ejection issues, I believe, around the end. But this puts together what Hancock is talking about with what Shock is talking about elsewhere. 

 

 

That's the point of the pod casts - showing the growing number of evidence that does exist and cautioning people not believe claims like you've made above. And also the claims that this is all refuted because the refutation claims have been refuted in return. That's the main issue being discussed throughout. 

 

 

I don't know how important this is aside from differences in opinion. Some think he made it up and seem content to hold ground there. Other's think he did inherit some information about a past calamity and made a poetic piece about it. I don't see how either side can prove their opinion. It's not different than the Jesus myth in that way. Some like the myth route others do not. Proving it is impossible. So we're left each with our own opinions in the end about two choices, neither of which come with contemporary evidence to settle the issue once and for all.

 

 

He is making a living doing these lectures. I'm not as dismissive of Hancock as I once was. I don't think the Orion correlation theory is psuedo science, nor archaeo-astronomy in general. I know too much about how the "as above so below" axiom played out in ancient cultures. It's pretty obvious that they were trying to lay out on the ground what they observed in the sky in a lot of these cases. The controversy comes from when the celestial layout dates to before people think these cultures were there. But even then, it's possible that they were back dated to revere times in the distant past because they knew how to reverse the cycles and what an ancient sky would have looked like compared to the contemporary sky of their respective times. There's a whole lot going there. The main thing is that I know these guys are carrying the burden of evidence so that's what I'm watching play out. The skeptics don't have to prove that no impacts ever happened, the proponents have to show that they did or that it's the best conclusion given the evidence that they can show. And that's what Carlson and Hancock are attempting to do in these pod casts and with their cited articles. 

 

@Geezer

 

Are you following this anymore? I think the two pod casts I've linked are the one's you referred to from Rogan with Carlson and Hancock. 

 

Absolutely. This and other related issues. I haven't  posted any comments because I've learned that posting anything in the science or political forums becomes similar to discussing Christianity with a fundamentalists. People tend to have closed minds and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. So, the discussions end up being arguments rather than exchanges of ideas.

 

So, I've decided to take a break, at least for awhile. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a cool new theory. It is controversial because this theory of a comet impact is new. In science most all theories have scientists that have different opinions, hypothesis, and theories other than the one the public is aware of. In the case of this video there are dueling scientists which has been made public because there still is no scientific consensus as to the cause of this extinction period. Concerning most all scientific theories there is controversy within science. But when a theory becomes entrenched like the Big Bang model has become, for instance, the public is not aware of the dissension within practitioners and theorists because such dissension involves only a small percentage of total scientists within the field, and because alternative theory rarely makes the news when a scientific consensus is well established. As for me, I would like to see more controversy in science made public.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The only point to this exchange seems to be that the Egyptian considers the Greeks less ancient, with less knowledge of the past than the Egyptians. And that makes sense considering the stone carved records dating back to Zep Tepi and all that went into the Egyptians record keeping. I know that cyclic time was a thing back then and they were aware of past civilizations being wiped out more than once. The Yuga's and the Metalic Greek precession age systems were employed at some point, and then the HIndu's expanded upon the precession cycle until they built the cycles way out to millions and billions of years by continuing to add numbers to precession. It sounds like the Egyptian had a similar view, but was biased to his own way of thinking. 

     I'm glad you've read that into the story since it's not in there.  There's no reference to the primeval mound.  Since I only posted that section to highlight the story of Phaethon I didn't include the portion where we actually learn that the Greeks, Athens, is a thousand years older than the Egyptians.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Is that the main reason that academics have decided that Atlantis was made up whole cloth? 

     Do I need academics for this to be the case?  Would a lack of academic support help make this more or less palatable?

 

     I've tried to make a point there are no other independent sources for this story anywhere in history.

 

     We need to have actual, independent, evidence that Solon or any Egyptians (especially those at Sais) knew this story.  Otherwise this is no better than Plato putting words in their mouths.  A second, non-Platonic derived source, would be extremely helpful here.  Since no such thing exists, and has apparently never existed, there's no reason to take this one at face value.

 

     Now, I know that I have posted Herodotus but what he states is not the same as what Plato reports.  These are not the same stories.  If they're related we have no way of knowing.  We also would have no idea which direction the influence might go.  What I am saying is would the Atlanteans of Herodotus be the influence for Plato's story or, assuming Plato's story to be true, is it the other way around?  That's even assuming the report by Herodotus is accurate and true which wasn't always the case.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Shoch goes into the fire issue with various evidence. The timelines they discuss in these pod casts range from around 12,800 through around 11,600 years ago with multiple impact issues and the solar mass ejection issues, I believe, around the end. But this puts together what Hancock is talking about with what Shock is talking about elsewhere. 

 

 

That's the point of the pod casts - showing the growing number of evidence that does exist and cautioning people not believe claims like you've made above. And also the claims that this is all refuted because the refutation claims have been refuted in return. That's the main issue being discussed throughout. 

     I'm sure they do caution against people like me.  I'm not all that welcome in churches either especially when I ask questions.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I don't know how important this is aside from differences in opinion. Some think he made it up and seem content to hold ground there. Other's think he did inherit some information about a past calamity and made a poetic piece about it. I don't see how either side can prove their opinion. It's not different than the Jesus myth in that way. Some like the myth route others do not. Proving it is impossible. So we're left each with our own opinions in the end about two choices, neither of which come with contemporary evidence to settle the issue once and for all.

     As I just said above.  There's no reason to trust this single source.  And since the others derive from this source we're still discussing a single source.  This is essentially like the church fathers simply repeating the same source over and over.  They can add their own spin, little bits and pieces, but the fact remain that they're relying on the same source documents.  There's nothing new, no independent, source to validate their story.  That's why they forged Pilate's report. 

 

     We don't have any of that here which is why our modern day "forgers" are willing to simply forgo that route and co-opt texts to suit their needs.  Which, now that I think about it, isn't so dissimilar from our early church fathers either.  As I said, if we accept the idea of a mound emerging from primeval waters then the bible gets it right too.  This must be the story of Atlantis in Genesis.  It only makes sense.  There's no reason to exclude it.  The kernel of truth and all.

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

He is making a living doing these lectures. I'm not as dismissive of Hancock as I once was. I don't think the Orion correlation theory is psuedo science, nor archaeo-astronomy in general. I know too much about how the "as above so below" axiom played out in ancient cultures. It's pretty obvious that they were trying to lay out on the ground what they observed in the sky in a lot of these cases. The controversy comes from when the celestial layout dates to before people think these cultures were there. But even then, it's possible that they were back dated to revere times in the distant past because they knew how to reverse the cycles and what an ancient sky would have looked like compared to the contemporary sky of their respective times. There's a whole lot going there. The main thing is that I know these guys are carrying the burden of evidence so that's what I'm watching play out. The skeptics don't have to prove that no impacts ever happened, the proponents have to show that they did or that it's the best conclusion given the evidence that they can show. And that's what Carlson and Hancock are attempting to do in these pod casts and with their cited articles. 

     The problem being the Orion theory was found to be total bunk?  I bought into it at one time.  But he was wrong.  People showed him to be wrong.  So he "fixed" it by saying that the sky was different then.  Which was wrong.  The sky was different at his favorite point in time like 12000 years ago or whatever.  But that failed to fix it.  All his fixes were failures.  The whole thing was a mess.  It failed even worse once it moved beyond the three belt stars which was the whole point.  So now people are looking at other stars like maybe that's the issue and he's really right.  But if he's got the stars wrong and they just don't fit over any dates then the theory is wrong.  If you can find some stars that work then you're simply overlaying stars onto pyramids until some fit is found but that doesn't mean the Egyptians built their pyramids to those stars.  You simply retrofit a theory, a set of stars, to fit the pyramids.  That the Egyptians actually did hold reverence for certain stars really becomes entirely irrelevant.

 

      I consider it pseudo-science because it is (from Wikipedia):



Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.

 

     Perhaps we'll see something come from the back and forth from the papers that were supposedly published.  I can't imagine it going well given early statements I've read but maybe it will force them to up their game?  I doubt that will dissuade true believers though.  There's a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding things like this.

 

          mwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Alright, let me try another approach that's less centered on Atlantis specifically and more on this extinction event and the ideas of advanced cultures.

 

     I just ripped the following off from Wikipedia:



Paleolithic
-----------

Lower Paleolithic
(c.3.3 Ma – 300 ka)
  Oldowan (2.6–1.7 Ma)
  Madrasian Culture (1.5 Ma)
  Soanian (0.5–0.13 Ma)
  Acheulean (1.76–0.1 Ma)
  Clactonian (0.3–0.2 Ma)
  Acheulo-Yabrudian complex (400-200 bp)
 

Middle Paleolithic
(300–45 ka)
  Mousterian (160–35-30 ka)
  Aterian (c. 145,000–c. 20,000 bp)
  Micoquien (130–70 ka)
  Sangoan (130-10 bp)
 

Upper Paleolithic
(50–10 ka)

  Emiran (50,000–40,000 bp)
  Bohunician (~48,000 bp)
  Ahmarian (46,000-42,000 bp)
  Châtelperronian (~44,500 – 36,000 bp)
  Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (43-32 ka)
  Aurignacian (46-43,000 – c. 26,000 bp)
  Khormusan (42,000-18,000 bp)
  Baradostian (36-18 ka)
  Périgordian (35–20 ka)
  Gravettian (33–24 ka)
  Antelian (32–20 bp)
  Mal'ta–Buret' culture (24,000 - 15,00 bp)
  Solutrean (22–17 ka)
  Halfan culture (22,000-14,000)
  Afontova Gora (21,000-12,000}
  Epigravettian (20-10 ka)
  Zarzian culture (20,000-10,000 bp)
  Iberomaurusian (~25/23,000-11,000 cal bp)
  Kebaran (18,000 – 12,500 bp)
  Magdalenian (17–12 ka)
  Trialetian (16,000-8,000 bp)
  Hamburg (15,500-13,100 bp)
  Eburran industry (15,000-5,000 bp)
  Qadan culture (15,000 BP — 11,000 bp)
  Sebilian (15,00 -11,00 bp)
  Natufian culture (14,500–11,500 bp)
  Federmesser (14–13 ka)
  Ahrensburg (13–12 ka)
  Khiamian (12,200 and 10,800 bp)
  Swiderian (11–8 ka)

     As you can see it's the current basic timeline for the Paleolithic (which is the time before our own).  You can see all those little divisions are of the various groups or cultures that they've found evidences for and have dated throughout this epoch.  Some overlap and some extend well into our own as you can see.

 

     If you do even the least bit of investigation you will find that these groups are all impressive in their own ways.  You can see many of them creating various weapons, tools, foods even gods and other items that are quite recognizable to us still today and in other ancient cultures.  From the start of the Paleolithic until the end we can see people doing what they do which is creating and improving over time and their cultures rising and falling for any number of reasons.

 

     When I looked down the list (I haven't looked over all of them) I found that a number of these created forms of things that people speak like were lost and had to be rediscovered but it appears they simply came down the line as we might expect.  The only thing that happened is they found better and better ways of doing things.  They build better mousetraps.

 

     But maybe I'm missing something?  As I said I haven't read them all over.  I can't even figure out how to make a link to the list.  You just have to look one up and go from there (there's probably a way to get the links to work but it didn't for me).  I didn't even include the Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic and Neolithic groups either since I couldn't include links and it just made things longer (and they're a tad later).

 

          mwc

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 12:42 PM, mwc said:

I've tried to make a point there are no other independent sources for this story anywhere in history.

 

     We need to have actual, independent, evidence that Solon or any Egyptians (especially those at Sais) knew this story.  Otherwise this is no better than Plato putting words in their mouths.  A second, non-Platonic derived source, would be extremely helpful here.  Since no such thing exists, and has apparently never existed, there's no reason to take this one at face value.

 

Yes, and I added that the same is true of the gospels, which, no one seems to know about during the first century. Therefore they didn't exist in the late 1st century? Some say they didn't. Most say they must have, but the truth is that we don't have the contemporary witness evidence to hammer this thing down and conclude one way or the other. Such is the case with a lot of history. And I'm of the mindset that history itself is one big tangle of uncertainties. The truth is probably lost to time. Unless something changes. 

 

On 9/20/2018 at 12:42 PM, mwc said:

We don't have any of that here which is why our modern day "forgers" are willing to simply forgo that route and co-opt texts to suit their needs.  Which, now that I think about it, isn't so dissimilar from our early church fathers either.  As I said, if we accept the idea of a mound emerging from primeval waters then the bible gets it right too.  This must be the story of Atlantis in Genesis.  It only makes sense.  There's no reason to exclude it.  The kernel of truth and all.

 

Some christians would likely go that route. Since the dry land appears out of the water they'd draw a connection and then suggest that Atlantis was a pre-flood civilization and went down according Noah's global flood. Drawing off of ideas about advanced knowledge pre-flood that was wiped out by the flood. But those are all much easier to untangle than what Hancock is reporting about realistic scenarios like meteor showers and localized flooding from landmass ice melt and other issues that do have evidence in their favor. 

 

On 9/20/2018 at 12:42 PM, mwc said:

The problem being the Orion theory was found to be total bunk?  I bought into it at one time.  But he was wrong.  People showed him to be wrong.  So he "fixed" it by saying that the sky was different then.  Which was wrong.  The sky was different at his favorite point in time like 12000 years ago or whatever.  But that failed to fix it.  All his fixes were failures.  The whole thing was a mess.  It failed even worse once it moved beyond the three belt stars which was the whole point.  So now people are looking at other stars like maybe that's the issue and he's really right.  But if he's got the stars wrong and they just don't fit over any dates then the theory is wrong.  If you can find some stars that work then you're simply overlaying stars onto pyramids until some fit is found but that doesn't mean the Egyptians built their pyramids to those stars.  You simply retrofit a theory, a set of stars, to fit the pyramids.  That the Egyptians actually did hold reverence for certain stars really becomes entirely irrelevant.

 

Here are the correspondence spread out between the Giza Necropolis, Nile, and surrounding solar temples around the site. The basics about precession are first. Then he goes into the corresponding temples starting at 2:00 forward with graphic illustrations of what he's talking about:

 

 

Buvual feels like this was commemorative work based on reversing the sothic cycles as he discusses in the video. Nothing too radical about any of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, and I added that the same is true of the gospels, which, no one seems to know about during the first century. Therefore they didn't exist in the late 1st century? Some say they didn't. Most say they must have, but the truth is that we don't have the contemporary witness evidence to hammer this thing down and conclude one way or the other. Such is the case with a lot of history. And I'm of the mindset that history itself is one big tangle of uncertainties. The truth is probably lost to time. Unless something changes. 

 

     I don't know, did they?  Do you have evidence for them existing?  If you do then you have something that no one else possesses.  There are evidences of xians in other literature.  That doesn't mean they were using the gospels.  The textual analysis of the texts just make people think they had to have come from an earlier source (or sources).

 

     There is no evidence of Atlantis prior to Plato in these same ways.

 

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Some christians would likely go that route. Since the dry land appears out of the water they'd draw a connection and then suggest that Atlantis was a pre-flood civilization and went down according Noah's global flood. Drawing off of ideas about advanced knowledge pre-flood that was wiped out by the flood. But those are all much easier to untangle than what Hancock is reporting about realistic scenarios like meteor showers and localized flooding from landmass ice melt and other issues that do have evidence in their favor. 

     I'm not talking about some xians.  If there's a creation story in one group that has a set of things and a similar story in another group that has a similar set of things then those two stories must, of course, be talking about the same thing.  In this case they're both talking of Atlantis.  It makes no sense to ignore one but not the other.

 

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Here are the correspondence spread out between the Giza Necropolis, Nile, and surrounding solar temples around the site. The basics about precession are first. Then he goes into the corresponding temples starting at 2:00 forward with graphic illustrations of what he's talking about:

 

 

Buvual feels like this was commemorative work based on reversing the sothic cycles as he discusses in the video. Nothing too radical about any of this. 

     Yeah, except these guys turned out to be wrong no matter the date.  It's not a matter of radical.  It's a matter of correct.  They were incorrect.  Things came close with the three largest pyramids on the plateau but as they expanded outward it failed miserably.  So now people are trying to choose other stars, other constellations or asterisms, so it does work and have so far had similar luck.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 9:41 AM, Geezer said:

Absolutely. This and other related issues. I haven't  posted any comments because I've learned that posting anything in the science or political forums becomes similar to discussing Christianity with a fundamentalists. People tend to have closed minds and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. So, the discussions end up being arguments rather than exchanges of ideas.

 

So, I've decided to take a break, at least for awhile. 

 

Ok, just checking. I've learned some more about this by going over all the relevant pod casts. The platinum found across North America and Europe they count as very relevant to the case. And from what I can tell, that comes in behind the original so called 'refutations' during the earlier years when the TV program aired and certain peers tried refuting the hypothesis. I'll have to look at the actual papers that Hancock cites in the pod casts that come as a second wave of refutation against the critics who initially claimed to the refute the hypothesis. I see a worm hole forming up. Without knowing those specifics it looks like we're all pissing into the wind. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mwc said:

Yeah, except these guys turned out to be wrong no matter the date.  It's not a matter of radical.  It's a matter of correct.  They were incorrect.  Things came close with the three largest pyramids on the plateau but as they expanded outward it failed miserably.  So now people are trying to choose other stars, other constellations or asterisms, so it does work and have so far had similar luck.

 

I just showed you the astronomy software used (at 3:47) and how as they expand out the correspondences increase. In other words, only get more correct the deeper they dive into it.

 

You're saying it's incorrect and alleging that it's some how failed. According to what? Failed how exactly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I just showed you the astronomy software used (at 3:47) and how as they expand out the correspondences increase. In other words, only get more correct the deeper they dive into it.

 

You're saying it's incorrect and alleging that it's some how failed. According to what? Failed how exactly? 

     I don't have a video.  I am going to be just as lazy in this case.  Here.  But worse here.  Once the author has to switch away from all the literal sciencey stuff, like in that video, to symbolic sciencey stuff he's kind of ran out of options.  It doesn't matter if things ever line up or anything ever really works.  It just needs to look good on a symbolic level.  Isn't that what it was really about all along?  Even when we first started and said it was a literal star for star representation of Orion on the ground at scale and everything with computers and stuff.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the ancients build those huge Megalithic structures? I found this and it probably answers that question. 

 

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powered-cranes.html

 

The sky is the limit: human powered cranes and lifting devices

The most common tower crane used in construction today has a lifting capacity of some 12 to 20 tonnes. For quite a few construction projects in ancient history, this type of crane would be completely inadequate.

 

The majority of stones that make up the almost 140 discovered Egyptian pyramids have a weight of "only" 2 to 3 tonnes each, but all of these structures (built between 2750 and 1500 BC) also hold stone blocks weighing 50 tonnes, sometimes more. The temple of Amon-Ra at Karnak contains a labyrinth of 134 columns, standing 23 metres (75 feet) tall and supporting crossbeams weighing 60 to 70 tonnes each. The 18 capital blocks of Trajan's column in Rome weigh more than 53 tonnes and they were lifted to a height of 34 metres (111 feet). The Roman Jupiter temple in Baalbek contains stone blocks weighing over 100 tonnes, raised to a height of 19 metres (62 feet). Today, to lift a weight of 50 to 100 tonnes to these heights, you need a crane like this.

Occasionally, our forefathers lifted even heavier stones. The gravestone of Theoderic the Great in Ravenna (around 520 AD) is a 275 tonne stone block that was lifted to a height of 10 metres. The temple dedicated to Pharaoh Khafre in Egypt is made up of monolithic blocks weighing up to 425 tonnes. The largest Egyptian obelisk weighed more than 500 tons and stands more than 30 metres tall, while the largest obelisk in the Kingdom of Axum in Ethiopia (4th century AD), raised up to a similar height, weighed 520 tonnes. The Colossi of Memnon, two statues of 700 tonnes each, were erected to a height of 18 metres and the walls in the Roman Baalbek temple complex (1st century BC) contain almost 30 monoliths weighing 300 to 750 tons each.

 

Considering the type of cranes that would be needed today, one wonders how our forefathers were able to lift such impressive weights without the help of sophisticated machinery. The fact is, they had advanced machinery at their disposal. The only difference with contemporary cranes is that these machines were powered by humans instead of fossil fuels.

 

Basically, there is no limit to the weight that humans can lift by sheer muscle power. Nor is there a limit to the height to which this weight can be lifted. The only advantage that fossil fuelled powered cranes have brought us, is a higher lifting speed. Of course, this does not mean that one man can lift anything to any height, or that we can lift anything to any height if we just bring enough people together. But, starting more than 5,000 years ago, engineers designed a collection of machines that greatly enhanced the lifting power of an individual or a group of people. Lifting devices were mainly used for construction projects, but (later) also for the loading and unloading of goods, for hoisting sails on ships, and for mining purpose

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mwc said:

     I don't have a video.  I am going to be just as lazy in this case.  Here.  But worse here.  Once the author has to switch away from all the literal sciencey stuff, like in that video, to symbolic sciencey stuff he's kind of ran out of options.  It doesn't matter if things ever line up or anything ever really works.  It just needs to look good on a symbolic level.  Isn't that what it was really about all along?  Even when we first started and said it was a literal star for star representation of Orion on the ground at scale and everything with computers and stuff.

 

          mwc

 

 

Well no wonder you're confused about what Buvual is even talking about in the first place. The first link is to a rational wiki article which doesn't in any way refute the OCT, but merely shows some guy who doesn't like it associating it with other New Age ideas that center around Egypt and the Pyramids and then hand wave dismissing the whole lot, in quite a haste at that. And I see that it's also the first link that comes up under the key word search, "orion correlation theory debunked." 

 

Here's a link that takes issue with the so called refutation: http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,344305,344305

 

The second article you posted is from Bauval himself (dated 2000) explaining why his theory wasn't refuted and the specifics of why it wasn't refuted, and the disingenuous way others have tried to refute him, which is obvious if you do understand the context and content of what's being discussed: 

 

[snipped from second link]

 

Plan of the Giza Pyramids Orion's belt Looking South  
BauvalR3-plate4a.jpg

 

BauvalR3-plate4b.jpg

 

 

Quote

The first questions that come to mind in order to demonstrate such possible intention are these:

 

     1.Did the pyramid builders have a keen interest in the stars? Yes they did.

     2.Do the pyramids have astronomical qualities in their design? Yes they do.

     3.Is there a feature in the pyramids that links them to Orion's belt? Yes there is (the southern shaft from the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid).

     4.Are there contemporary or near-contemporary texts which are associated to pyramids in that region and which speak of a link with Orion? Yes, there are.

     5.Did the ancient Egyptians imagine the pyramids to be 'stars'? Yes (the Zawyat al Aryan pyramid was called 'The Pyramid of Nebka is a star" and the Abu Ruwash pyramid was called "The Pyramid of Djedefre is a Sehed Star". Also the 'soul' (Ba) in ancient Egypt was equated to a 'star', and several pyramids bear 'soul names', such as "The Pyramid of Neferirkare has become a Ba (Soul)" and "The Ba (Soul) of Sahure Gleams".

From the above we must conclude that there is much that suggests a deliberate intention to represent Orion's belt at Giza.

Yet the BBC Horizon programme conveniently 'forgot' about all this. Instead they brought in the 'scientific' argument of a South African astronomer called Tony Fairall who calculated that there was an angle difference of 9 degrees of rotation between the alignment of the two larger pyramids and that of the brighter stars in Orion's belt and, consequently, this 'proved' that there was no intention by the ancient builders to represent Orion's belt by the Giza pyramids. But how did Fairall measure this angle? Well, according to him he first measured it 'off' the planetarium screen, then calculated it using spherical trigonometry. The ancient Egyptians, however, had to measure it literally 'off' the sky. Now the angle of rotation of the two (lower) brighter stars of Orion's belt, as it appears to the naked-eye, is very difficult to measure within an accuracy of less than +/- 5 degrees of rotation, especially when we have to make use of simple and veryrudimentary instruments and working in darkness. Why not try it from your home tonight? At this time of year (December-January) Orion rises at around 6 PM and reaches the meridian at about midnight. At any rate, even were it feasible to get an accuracy of less than +/- 5 degrees, this is really academic, for visually such a variation is almost impossible to discern for the small apparent length as Orion's belt as it appears to the naked eye, as the diagram below demonstrates.

 

BauvalR3-plate5.jpg

 

 

So what can we derive of all this? Well, at best it is an example of the 'misuse' of science to argue a point which deals, predominantly, with issues that must be squarely placed in a context of a remote age in antiquity. At worst, it is plainly dishonest to present such an argument without a proper presentation of the context. But were the BBC2 Horizon programme-makers aware that they were doing such a thing? Let's see. In 1994 BBC2 had made a programme called 'TheGreat Pyramid: Gateway to the Stars' in which precisely such a context was discussed and presented in great detail. Did Horizon know of this? Yes, because they actually used footage of this earlier programme to make Atlantis Reborn, shown on Thursday 14 December. Furthermore the Horizon programme makers attempted to deride the star-ground correlation idea by fudging an image of Leo on the Manhattan area of New York in order to show, from their viewpoint, how ridiculous such an idea really was. But the Leo-Manhattan correlation was entirely devoid of any context i.e. there had obviously been no possible intention by the part of the various architects and town planners to create such a correlation. Frankly, the only conclusion I can draw from such odd behavior is that the Horizon programme makers were either very naïve or were working according to a preconceived biased agenda. Have your pick.

At any rate, it gave me the opportunity to show a photo of myself as a child. Cute, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Geezer said:

Basically, there is no limit to the weight that humans can lift by sheer muscle power. Nor is there a limit to the height to which this weight can be lifted. The only advantage that fossil fuelled powered cranes have brought us, is a higher lifting speed. Of course, this does not mean that one man can lift anything to any height, or that we can lift anything to any height if we just bring enough people together. But, starting more than 5,000 years ago, engineers designed a collection of machines that greatly enhanced the lifting power of an individual or a group of people. Lifting devices were mainly used for construction projects, but (later) also for the loading and unloading of goods, for hoisting sails on ships, and for mining purpose

 

This goes to show that what ever happened with the older sites, the sites that are alleged to date back to before recognized dating for civilization, doesn't require UFO's, anti-gravity and the general things that most critics are trying to refute. It only requires that we advanced to these several thousand years before we understand, at least in some places, and then was lost again until it began to reemerge around 3 or 4 thousands before the current era. This isn't very sensational, really. But it does require (1) people admitting they had something wrong and (2) a new way of adjusting the timeline for civilization skills. That's enough, apparently, for some old guard academics to resort to hit pieces, a variety of slander and intellectual dishonesty, and walk off the debate stage as Hawass did. And then return but refuse to engage the content.

 

Shameful, really: 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Well no wonder you're confused about what Buvual is even talking about in the first place. The first link is to a rational wiki article which doesn't in any way refute the OCT, but merely shows some guy who doesn't like it associating it with other New Age ideas that center around Egypt and the Pyramids and then hand wave dismissing the whole lot.

     True enough.  When they sum up by saying:



Based on this, one can only conclude that OCT is nothing but pseudo-science, based on ideas which are sound (such as the religious importance of certain stars to Egyptian religion) taken to their logical, but ultimately absurd, conclusions.

     It;s understandable where I might get confused about whether or not this was a refutation of the OCT.  It could go either way.  They might be saying the OCT is legit science and something reasonable to consider.  Someone should tell them to tighten up the wording here.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The second article is from Buvual explaining why his theory wasn't refuted and the specifics of why it wasn't refuted: 

 

[snipped from second link]

 

Plan of the Giza Pyramids Orion's belt Looking South  
BauvalR3-plate4a.jpg

 

BauvalR3-plate4b.jpg

 

     Take a look here.  You can see the pyramids are aligned.  It's an optical illusion that they're not.  Unless you're expecting they be aligned on the diagonal as opposed to the corner (just compare the NW corners in the above image as opposed to the centers).  The Egyptians didn't offset a pyramid they simply built a smaller pyramid.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This goes to show that what ever happened with the older sites, the sites that are alleged to date back to before recognized dating for civilization, doesn't require UFO's, anti-gravity and the general things that most critics are trying to refute. It only requires that we advanced to these several thousand years before we understand, at least in some places, and then was lost again until it began to reemerge around 3 or 4 thousands before the current era. This isn't very sensational, really. But it does require (1) people admitting they had something wrong and (2) a new way of adjusting the timeline for civilization skills. 

     I provided a list, essentially a timeline, of known cultures just a few posts up.  How does any of this align with those cultures?  How does it all fit in with what we know about them?  It seems they should hold the key to whatever was "lost" so that it could "reemerge" but I've been unable to locate any such information.  Perhaps I've missed it?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's citation about just that, specifically the Giza Pyramids: http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,318067,318067

 

So, how exactly do you project a three-dimensional construct i.e. three stars, each higher than the other onto a two-dimensional plane where south is regarded as highest? You do it in precisely the manner the AEs did it, placing G1 furthest north (lowest) and G3 furthest south (highest). There is no other way to do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I provided a list, essentially a timeline, of known cultures just a few posts up.  How does any of this align with those cultures?  How does it all fit in with what we know about them?  It seems they should hold the key to whatever was "lost" so that it could "reemerge" but I've been unable to locate any such information.  Perhaps I've missed it?

 

          mwc

 

 

Hancock does sort of get into that direction in the pod casts. These megalithic sites have an odd feature of men carrying a hand bag of some type. It's in Turkey, Egypt and the Americas. I think the same symbolism is shown in Easter Island, but I'd have to check that again. The standing claim seems to be that disaster around the breaking up of the last ice age put these civilizations down. Some knowledge may have remained in tact by way of initiates who passed down knowledge or from recovering some bits of information in these old ruins as civilization picked up again and began to rebuild on what was at that time ancient religious sites. The temples seem to be built on top of previous ones. The pyramids could have been built on top of something previous which tried to 3D model Orion back then. I'm not sure. But it's not as if there's no possibility that this could be case. It's not a closed door from what I'm seeing. And there's no reason to project that the case is closed when it seems far from it. 

 

It's not as if it matters one way or the other if someone chooses not to believe anything contrary to the orthodox view. If these contrary claims are true they'll be proven true in time. And then it will be a choice of either ignoring the new orthodoxy or jumping on board with it. I agree that the work has to be done to win this fight if Hancock and crew want to count it as a win. And they're trying. They're refuting the so called refutations, and they're pushing forward in 2018 and set to continue beyond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Hancock does sort of get into that direction in the pod casts. This megalithic sites have an odd feature of men carrying a hand bag of some type. It's in Turkey, Egypt and the Americas. I think the same symbolism is shown in Easter Island, but I'd have to check that again. The standing claim seems to be that disaster around the breaking up of the last ice age put these civilizations down. Some knowledge may have remained in tact by way of initiates who passed down knowledge or from recovering some bits of information in these old ruins as civilization picked up again and began to rebuild on what was at that time ancient religious sites.

     That's a lot of speculation given a handbag.  And I'm surprised a handbag survived given all that I'm told that was unable to last.  But I'm spying the word "symbolism" in there which tells me that a handbag doesn't necessarily have to be a handbag.

 

2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The temples seem to be built on top of previous ones. The pyramids could have been built on top of something previous which tried to 3D model Orion back then. I'm not sure. But it's not as if there's no possibility that this could be case. It's not a closed door from what I'm seeing. 

     This is frequently the case.  Mosques built on churches and other sites (there's one in Luxor).  Churches built on any number of pagan sites.  The Romans built on the Jewish temple.  And so on it goes back into antiquity.  There's nothing surprising here.  When a religion wants to setup in town they often do so in the old ones digs.

 

     If we're going to speculate that the pyramids were build on an existing temple then we're having to limit ourselves to the Giza pyramids, a special case, and exclude all other pyramids otherwise we have to assume that all pyramids were built on existing temple sites for some reason.  There's no evidence that this was ever the case no matter how we look at it.

 

2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

It's not as if it matters one or the other if someone chooses to believe that the contrary claims to orthodoxy are false. If they're true they'll be proven true in time. And then it will be a choice of either ignoring the new orthodoxy or jumping on board. I agree that the work has to be done to win this fight if Hancock and crew want to count it as a win. And they're trying. They're refuting the so called refutations, and they're pushing forward. 

     That's not what I was asking.  I was asking how it fit in.  I'm being told there was a nearly universal group of folks that interacted, traded, traveled, had lots of advanced tool and abilities.  I was asking where they were in the list of known peoples.  I couldn't locate them.  There are plenty of people that were quite capable but not at this level.  In order to have these groups pass on their knowledge to the second set of groups it had to have existed.  But I'm only seeing a build up towards that level that the second group could continue and not a level that exceeded that level that the second group would rediscover.  Something more along the lines of what we might have seen in the Middle Ages at best.  A build-up over time, then a leveling off period, then a continuation.  So I must be missing this.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sumarians, as well as other cultures, claim their knowledge of mathematics, agriculture, engineering, written language, & navigation came from the Gods that came down from the sky. This claim appears in a number of ancient cultures writings.  That is intriguing. Who were these Gods and where did they come from? 

 

They are often identified as 7 Sages. And they carry a hand bag in all the images they appear in and these same images appear all over the world. I find this to be one of the more interesting aspects of this mystery. 

 

 

One of of the reasons I find this so intriguing is because my wife and I encountered a UFO on a rural Indiana road about midnight in 1968. I remember the date because I had just been discharged from the Navy. I wrote about that incident some time ago. 

 

Add the fact that there are trillions and trillions of universes and untold trillions of planets that makes it unlikely earth is the only place life exists. Therefore, I don't discount the  possibility of these " Gods" being ET life forms. I know that is unlikely, but unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.