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

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#131

Post by neaden »

cryptonector wrote: post #122
neaden wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are conflating people calling the Trojan war fiction with thinking the city was. While there were a few people like Bryant who thought Troy was totally fictional it was always a very fringe position.

What are you talking about? Here is the Blaise Pascal quote in the first link: > "nobody supposes that Troy and Agamemnon existed any more than the apples of the Hesperides. [Homer] had no intention to write history, but only to amuse us."

I would need to see that in more context but even if Pascal didn't believe in the existence of Troy that would represent him having a weird conspiracy theory then a widespread belief, like pointing to flat earthers today. As I said it was an inhabited city until just a few hundred years before his life, there is no meaningful comparison to Atlantis.

I think you are confusing people debating the historicity of the Trojan war and the debate on the exact location of the ancient city with people thinking Troy was thought to be fictional and rediscovered. The latter never happened and people using it to imply Atlantis might exist are using the debunking of one conspiracy theory to prove another one. This is like using the Moon Landing being real to prove Roswell.

Edit: Troy, generally being referred to as Ilium (where we get the Iliad), or Troas is in the Acts of the Apostles as a place Paul went, it had a bishop who attended Church councils, it was part of the Roman empire, you can buy coins from there today https://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?search=ilium this is not at all comparable to Atlantis.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#132

Post by Beijinger »

Tagbert wrote: post #80
Beijinger wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying that the ark left the flooded Black Sea basin, flew through the air, and landed on a mountain many kilometers from the sea? That seems like a stretch to fit a hypothesis.

"many kilometers" Dude, it does not get much closer than that. But you are right, he did not land in Istanbul.

"It's useless to try to explain a thought to someone for whom a hint is not enough." — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#133

Post by Beijinger »

protocolture wrote: post #114
Beijinger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder about the intellectual capabilities of some members here.

"It's useless to try to explain a thought to someone for whom a hint is not enough." — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#134

Post by michtzik »

potato3732842 wrote: post #128
MattGrommes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My daughter is an archeologist and this is one of her bugbears, the idea that the Egyptians couldn't possibly have built something so huge on their own. Even though we're pretty clear on it, the originally racist idea that they were too primitive has survived long enough to just become "common knowledge" with the explicit racism receding.

Gotta love the casual "anything I don't like must be rooted in racism" attitude. Ancient civilizations had fairly thin survive or starve margins. Civilizations that sit atop the best agricultural land and build vanity projects instead of armies and practical infrastructure don't tend to sit atop that land for long. While we don't have precise records nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones nor how they mobili…

> nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones

Plenty of people, including myself, are perplexed about how they moved stones. Specifically, how 60--80 ton stones were moved up.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#135

Post by potato3732842 »

michtzik wrote: post #134
potato3732842 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta love the casual "anything I don't like must be rooted in racism" attitude. Ancient civilizations had fairly thin survive or starve margins. Civilizations that sit atop the best agricultural land and build vanity projects instead of armies and practical infrastructure don't tend to sit atop that land for long. While we don't have precise records nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones nor how they mobili…

> nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones Plenty of people, including myself, are perplexed about how they moved stones. Specifically, how 60--80 ton stones were moved up .

Go watch Wally Willington's DIY Stonehenge stuff on youtube. Whole lotta ways to skin that cat depending on what you're working with.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#136

Post by neaden »

Beijinger wrote: post #132
Tagbert wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that the ark left the flooded Black Sea basin, flew through the air, and landed on a mountain many kilometers from the sea? That seems like a stretch to fit a hypothesis.

"many kilometers" Dude, it does not get much closer than that. But you are right, he did not land in Istanbul. "It's useless to try to explain a thought to someone for whom a hint is not enough." — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

It's 300 kilometers away and the Black Sea isn't even the closest large body of water to it.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#137

Post by taeric »

watwut wrote: post #124
taeric wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just greek/roman writers. We seem to desperately want to think any writer in the past was more serious than I think we can really justify. It gets downright silly when we find artifacts and assume they must have been holy priceless things. Not that that can't be correct sometimes. Would be interesting to see that quantified.

Historians don't do that much tho. That was one thing I realized when I started to read more serious historians. It is mostly popular "bro that was cool" history that does that ... and history written for concrete political purpose of inspiring the public to something.

I suspected it is largely history as taught to elementary school kids. Which, seems to be all anyone really every indexes on. Consider, "are you smarter than a 5th grader?" was a popular show.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#138

Post by cryptonector »

neaden wrote: post #131
cryptonector wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Here is the Blaise Pascal quote in the first link: > "nobody supposes that Troy and Agamemnon existed any more than the apples of the Hesperides. [Homer] had no intention to write history, but only to amuse us."

I would need to see that in more context but even if Pascal didn't believe in the existence of Troy that would represent him having a weird conspiracy theory then a widespread belief, like pointing to flat earthers today. As I said it was an inhabited city until just a few hundred years before his life, there is no meaningful comparison to Atlantis. I think you are confusing people debating the historicity of the Tro…

There were people before 1870, some cranks, sure, some not, who thought Troy itself was fictional. I was told as much as a child (that it had been thought that Troy was fictional). I linked to a specific quote by someone you did not name as a crank saying that both the stories and the city were fictional.

I believe you that many others did think Troy had existed, and that there were many good reasons to think as much.

The comparison of Atlantis to Troy is somewhat apt in my opinion, and completely inapt in yours.

I did not say that Atlantis must exist, or that the experience with Troy implies as much. On the contrary, I said Atlantis can't ever be found, either because it never existed or because if it did the cataclysm supposed by some to have destroyed it must have left no evidence of it behind. (Unless of course Atlantis was the Americas, in which case it was found in some sense, but not another, and again, if destroyed fully then it never will be found, and since it hasn't been found on the Americas yet it's safe to say it never will be.)

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#139

Post by os2warpman »

michtzik wrote: post #134
potato3732842 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta love the casual "anything I don't like must be rooted in racism" attitude. Ancient civilizations had fairly thin survive or starve margins. Civilizations that sit atop the best agricultural land and build vanity projects instead of armies and practical infrastructure don't tend to sit atop that land for long. While we don't have precise records nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones nor how they mobili…

> nobody is perplexed about how they moved stones Plenty of people, including myself, are perplexed about how they moved stones. Specifically, how 60--80 ton stones were moved up .

Timber, rope, time, and effort.

That's it. That's all there is to it.

Nothing more.

It isn't complicated, it's leverage, ramps, muscles, and patience.

It is likely that the entire construction program was planned around the 10-20 years it took to move the 80-ton weight-relieving stones much like how today I plan engineering and manufacturing efforts around the components with the longest lead times.

There were very few 80t blocks and those only had to go halfway up. Most were 2.5t.

Sacsayhuamán in Peru has 100t+ stones that were quarried 35km from the fortress location and transported up a steep incline. It took 6,000 men to move the stones.

Re: The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

#140

Post by Beijinger »

nartho wrote: post #63
Beijinger wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Achilles was bathed by his mom in the river Styx, not in the blood of a dragon." Right. The Problem is, that I never claimed this. And based on the Thread, every half educated person would have realized that this is a quote regarding the Nibelungen tale that was mentioned before.

You're right, I was ignorant about the Nibelungen and assumed it was about Achilles. If you had just provided the information to me instead of resorting to name calling (twice now) without adding anything to the conversation (comments on HN are supposed to add something to the conversation, I imagine you know that), I would have learned something new, we both would have wasted less time by arguing back and forth, and…

"It's useless to try to explain a thought to someone for whom a hint is not enough." — Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Post reply on HN