Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

talesoftimesforgotten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#111

Post by protocolture »

FloorEgg wrote: post #92
jcranmer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about Gobekli Tepe? What about it? It's one of the oldest Neolithic settlements we've identified, but otherwise, it's not particularly unusual within our understanding of Neolithic Mesopotamia. When GP is talking about "material culture", they're (probably) referring to the archaeological definition of culture, which means you need to give an explanation as to what makes an artifact indicative of belonging to…

There is so much about your comment here that I appreciate (similar to your other reply to me). Thank you. I wish I had time right now to thoughtfully ask a couple questions I have, but it will have to wait. I am compelled to squeeze this in: "As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've…

One of hancocks claims is that his urcivilisation that seeded technology all over the planet were white.

He has dropped the claim from more recent works but never recanted it.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#112

Post by protocolture »

FloorEgg wrote: post #34
saturn_vk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is irrelevant I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts > What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot? According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material

> I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts I thought I was pretty clear about the strikes being in North America, but ill emphasize that point again. The formation is natural and the theory is that human settled in it for its logistical and defensive advantages (back when the area around it was lush), and then got wiped out by floods caused by global climate shifts caused by massive meteorite st…

>and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate.

This bit never happens.

What does occur is that the hypothesis just twists to ignore new data. Hancock has claimed that as he isn't a scientist he doesn't need to include the facts that disagree with his ideas. He sees himself as a champion of an idea, and cherry picks facts to craft the best possible case for that idea. IE: Hes a massive fraud and waste of time.

> I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false.

I take issue with the idea that this entire argument has to happen again, politely and fresh, for anyone who pops up on the internet having read some cherry picked nonsense about atlantis. Why is it our collective responsibility to educate you. Its not even the responsibility of scientists to prove or disprove your claims, if you are making positive claims you should be either presenting or locating evidence for those claims. Also to note, evidence doesnt mean "Hey this sounds a bit like some old folklore".

>I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be.

All offense intended, but the people who go on about this stuff have already arrived at their desired truth, and they are simply defending their truth from the slings and arrows of reality. Get on a boat, go investigate the Richat structure, come back with evidence, otherwise the current evidence stands.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#113

Post by protocolture »

Beijinger wrote: post #54
neaden wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not the flood in Genesis. Not even close to it, for instance in Genesis the land is flooded and then the waters recede and the land comes back, whereas the Black Sea is still a sea. You're just pointing at a flood and saying it must be the origin of a story of a flood, but there's no basis for it.

And where did Noah Land after the flood? Right. Mount Ararat

What

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#114

Post by protocolture »

Beijinger wrote: post #65
neaden wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the basis for thinking that it's not just a work of fantasy and has to be a retelling of real events? We have plenty of examples of people making up fantasy stories, why add this extra step that has no evidence for it?

How many coincidences? There are many (slightly different) versions of the text were discovered over a vast area? Germany, Norway etc. It must have been an extremely important "fairy tale". All this should raise suspicion.

Are you kidding? Folklore survives really well. Next you will tell us Giants are real because of Gilgamesh.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#115

Post by protocolture »

rfwhyte wrote: post #69

Damn some of the comments here are really depressing. I'd formerly thought HN was one of the last bastions of critical thought on internet, but I guess I was wrong judging by some of these comments. Way too much regurgitation of long-since debunked pseudo-scientific nonsense. Atlantis was never real and anyone who thinks it was is a moron. If there were truly some sort of globe-spanning advanced civilization existing…

>Damn some of the comments here are really depressing. I'd formerly thought HN was one of the last bastions of critical thought on internet, but I guess I was wrong judging by some of these comments. Way too much regurgitation of long-since debunked pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Knowledge, I keep insisting, comes in silos.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#116

Post by protocolture »

begueradj wrote: post #12

That does not make the existence of Atlantis a mere fiction. With the end of the Ice Age and its consequences, plenty of civilizations may have disappeared in deep waters. The Sumerians themselves claimed they received their knowledge from a man who visited them by the sea (fish-man like creature) on the aftermath of the great flood which may have buried plenty of Atlantis-like civilizations which could be the missin…

>With the end of the Ice Age and its consequences, plenty of civilizations may have disappeared in deep waters.

Yeah possibly.

But the current "fan favourite" capital of Atlantis is well above water.

IIRC there were stone age artefacts recovered from Doggerland. Which, also IIRC, was likely caused by a big ice shelf impacting the ocean at the end of the ice age. But to imply that a technological superpower with massive amounts of land disappeared without a trace is kind of bs.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#117

Post by FloorEgg »

protocolture wrote: post #111
FloorEgg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much about your comment here that I appreciate (similar to your other reply to me). Thank you. I wish I had time right now to thoughtfully ask a couple questions I have, but it will have to wait. I am compelled to squeeze this in: "As for the risk, a lot of these theories bear a deep legacy of overt racism just begin their skin; they've historically been used to devalue the abilities of the people who've…

One of hancocks claims is that his urcivilisation that seeded technology all over the planet were white. He has dropped the claim from more recent works but never recanted it.

So I read up on what you are saying and some of Hancock's past work, and I see how the theory could be seen as diminishing the accomplishments of indigenous cultures or denying their own capacity for innovation.

Prior to today, I hadn't read any of Graham Hancock's work and have no attachment to him or his theory.

I was under the impression that the younger dryas impact hypothesis was accepted by Geology (I actually learned from this thread that it's not). If one is to assume that the younger dryas was caused by cataclysmic meteorite impacts, then the idea that an ancient civilization was wiped out in said cataclysm seems plausible and triggered my curiosity.

Given that the impact hypothesis hasn't reached the burden of proof, then I am not sure what to make of it.

That said, I don't appreciate any implication that just because someone is interested in evidence of undiscovered pre younger dryas civilizations they are racist. Not speaking of Hancock specifically, but I would appreciate being able to have a conversation about the evidence without feeling like someone is implying I am racist because I am interested in it. (Keep in mind I wasn't the one who brought up Hancock)

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#118

Post by milesrout »

jcranmer wrote: post #97
milesrout wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

19th century archaeology and anthropology was thoroughly racist. It was a time where explorers could rediscover something like Great Zimbabwe and go "We found the Lost Tribe of Israel" because there's no way that the native inhabitants living among the site could possibly have built such an exquisite structure. It was a time where racism wasn't "dark-skinned people are bad" but rather "let me give you a lecture on ho…

[flagged]

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#119

Post by ab5tract »

jamiek88 wrote: post #86
gigatree wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be familiar with its architecture to be so dismissive. That’s the hn equivalent of calling Amazon “just a website”

Actually the opposite is true. YOU must be unfamiliar with the architecture and large projects in general if you Think there’s more to it than well understood ancient technology. The idea that it’s a mystery how the ancients built large projects like this and Easter island is simply modern chauvinism.

Even in the face of the new evidence of structures miles below the pyramids, we have to have this debate?

Or the chamber that was “theorized” by crackpots, included into Assassins Creed based on said “crackpots”, and then revealed to actually exist by sonography?

I think it’s far more sycophantic to insist that the ancient Egyptians were “primitive” rather than “advanced” when it was built, but hey, I’m against the grain and thus a crackpot.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#120

Post by FloorEgg »

protocolture wrote: post #104
FloorEgg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there were truly some sort of globe-spanning advanced civilization existing ~11KYA we'd have found at least one single piece of their material culture by now, but we haven't." What about Gobekli Tepe? "Nor have we found any genetic evidence in people or crops that there was any kind of "Empire" connecting parts of Europe or Africa as we find time and time again with real empires that actually existed in prehistor…

>You seem to be really upset (and frankly insulting) at the prospect of people being curious about the idea that we don't know everything about our history yet. Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it. This is where hancocks people always fall back to. Science just isnt "Imaginitive" enough to give enough time to their theories. Whereas…

Okay, I get it. You really don't like Hancock and you think he's racist.

I was trying to have a dialog about the actual evidence of the theory that the Richat structure could have been home to an advanced civilization that was wiped out in a flood ~12-13,000 years ago.

Here is what interests me:

- What evidence supports the theory, what evidence falsifies the theory

- If it's inconclusive, what kind of evidence would we need to find to either prove of falsify, and where would we look for it.

Because you have dragged in Hancock and his "people" (whatever that means) into this, I find it really hard to have a constructive dialog with you about the actual evidence and theory. Do you have any interest in setting aside the big fat red herring?

Here goes my best effort:

"There are tons of people in the field right now developing the science and pursuing the truth."

There are tons of people pursuing archeological excavations of the Richat structure? If not, then what novel theories are the archeology community pursuing?

"Scientific Curiosity should never involve insisting something exists without evidence or any intention of looking for it."

I am not doing that, and you are responding to me. I am asking about a theory and what evidence proves or disproves it. All science starts with observations and theories. My intention was to have a respectful dialog about the topic of the article, hoping I might learn something.

Post reply on HN