h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Mike, not all of the other islands have stood still if you look at the world as it looks today as aposed to the way it looked hundereds of years ago the world has changed conciderably since then. I don't remember who said it earlier that if you put the continents together as they once were and see the missing hole that could be were Atlantis once was, but volcanos, earthquaks and other natural distasters have also change the way our continents are.

I just don't get why you think it wouljd be so far fetched to think the world could change that much so quickly. our world is constantly changing. Imagine living 100 years in the future what you know as the world now would be totally differant then what you knew.

Did that come out right or am I rambleing on insanly?

Nah, that came out fine. I never said the islands all stayed still, I just said comparitevly stock still. If islands could move like Atlantis, then, like I said, we would have them zipping around the oceans like mopeds. Maybe my grandchildren can wake up one morning to find Hawaii on their front doorstep
That is why I find it far-fetched.

Here's something that's bugged me...I always thought that islands were connected to the Earth, and not plates of soil floating on the sea. Was my assumed belief correct or was I very wrong?

Another point mention:
"And, if you follow this train of logic, where there were plants, there may be fossils of plants..."
You say MAY be fossils of planets. There MAY NOT be fossils of plants and suchlike, I'd like to point out can't let these things go unnoticed *^_^*

Islands and continents don't float on the sea. The continental plates float on molten magma which allows them to move very, very slowly. Where the plates meet, one will slide over the other. This sliding is often jerky, which is why we get earthquakes. The bigger the jerk, the bigger the quake. This explains continental drift and how the Antarctic was probably tropical once, but too long ago for it to have been Atlantis.

The Atlantic Ocean got its name because Atlantis was supposed to have been there - a huge island out in the middle, somewhere between Europe / Africa and America. This was the only place to fit an island that was bigger than the 'Pillars of Hercules' and some other place I can't remember. However, the word for 'bigger than' in Greek (I think) is similar to the word for 'between'. One of the places identified as the 'Pillars of Hercules' are the Rock of Gibraltar and another rock on Morocco. This is why Santorini has been suggested as a possible Atlantis. It lies between the Pillars of Hercules and this other place (wherever it is).

Can somebody help me out here? I can't remember the name of the places Atlantis was bigger than / between, or who defined it. I think it was Plato, but I'm not sure.

I'm sorry CD I can't help you out on that one

Mike some of the islands were once conected to other continents, but namy were ceated from a combination of mostly volcano's but also earthqakes have helped.

That's right. And islands are connected to the sea bed. Right.

Now you mention it, Atlantis as a large island in middle of the Atlantic...must have been a bit of a pain for it to drift through and/or around those other plates top get to Antartica. And when it reached Antartica, it got assimilated into the main land mass or something? Woah dude!

Just to clarify an earlier point, it is the 'magnetic' poles which move, and not the Earth's axis (til we get hit by that meteorite in the 2030s)

There is also much geological evidence that the continents as we know them have moved over the Earth's surface, but this is over a very long geological time period. Britain itself was once a tropical land mass.

My memories of 'stories' about Atlantis put it's demise down to an earthquake or volcanic eruption, or possibly 'disappearing' into a trench on the edge of a plate. There is no 'mapping' to prove that Atlantis was not located in the Atlantic Ocean as such.

Fascinating stuff though. I'd be quite happy if someone was prepared to pay me to look for it. Think I'd start searching in the South Pacific...

~A~

IMHO crackpot is a strong word.Most intellectual thinkers of the past,(Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, and more...), were considered by their contemporaries to be raveing lunatics, because their views did not conform with current political, religious, or scientific thought.
In the U.S.A., Robert Goddard was considered a "crackpot" for his deranged theories that man could be propelled into space.
(The German V-2 rocket proved that perhaps a hasty labelling was used!).
I personally think that everyones opinion is important , because paradigm shifts can come from anyone...anywhere.
Thus..."Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water".

Anything is possible to an open mind.
(Egg yolk dribbles from my own cracked skull.)

I've read some of Graham Hancock’s books and can't help feeling that they leave a lot to be desired. He seems to regard his ignorance as revolutionary, not bothering to consider accepted theories (and more importantly evidence that is as unrefutable as any) in case they pour cold water on his wide-eyed child approach.

Anyway this is why I think this Atlantis/Antarctic theory (as described by Hancock at any rate) is a bit of a lame duck

1. From what I remember Hancock was putting the date of this Antarctic shift at about at about 10 thousand years ago. We have ice cores in the Antarctic that go back much further than that (about 90,000 yrs I think off hand) and they are corroborated by other ice cores and tree rings. An event of the magnitude described by Hancock (a continent shifting 2000 miles in a matter of moments), aside from destroying the majority of life on the planet would be kind of staring you in the face in these records.

2. Throughout the book Hancock is looking for a large expanse of land as described by his Research Assistant in his letter of resignation (who left saying the whole project was based on wishful thinking and weak associations). Its convenient that the location the chose as the site is hidden below several km of ice and can’t be disproved directly.

3. Switching of the North and South poles (not one of Hancock’s ideas as far as I know)? Shift in the magnetic flux (i.e. which way a needle points on a compass – yes (polar wandering curves are well established and used to date volcanic rock). Shift in the physical locations of the N and S poles – no. Not instantaneously anyway. There’s been a lot of tectonic shift but this is measured in inches per year, not miles an hour.

Anymore for anymore. Come on. I’ll have yer. There’s something in us all that wants to believe but you’ve got to look at the facts every once in a while….

Dave the Debunker….

This post has been removed.

When I described Hancock as a crackpot, I meant it. I am as amenable as any to alternative ideas. Hancock's ideas don't hold water, but still he clings to them and won't accept any constructive criticism that might modify them to fit in better with the facts.

Here in the UK we have a 'science' series called Horizon (sometimes it's more 'popular science' than deep intellectual stuff). Earlier this year they did a couple of programs on whether or not Atlantis ever existed. The first program dealt mainly with archaeological and historical evidence, which pretty much said that, no, there was no proof that Atlantis ever existed.

In the second program they turned to the theories of various modern writers, concentrating mainly on Graham Hancock and his idea that the pyramids at Giza align with the stars in Orion's belt. As you have to go back about 12,500 years to get a decent match, Hancock said that it proved that the layout was based on information from an older civilisation, i.e. Atlantis. He also reckoned that some of the temples at Ankor Wat align with the stars in the constellation Draco as it was 12,500 years ago.

The program knocked his ideas on the head in a very scientific way. Each time they raised an objection he countered it, sounding more and more petulant and childish as the program progressed. The program's reasoning was as follows.

1. There are over 80 pyramids in Egypt. Surely more should line up with constellations than just those three. (Hancock's reaction: It's not important that the others don't line up with anything.)

2. Even 12,500 years ago the alignment wasn't exact. (Hancock's reaction: That doesn't matter.)

3. The alignment of the temples of Ankor Wat with the constellation Draco doesn't even come close. (Hancock's reaction: You're being picky and pedantic.)

4. The reasons for the temples being where they are are known and documented. Besides the Cambodians don't recognise the constellation Draco and never have. (Hancock's reaction: No comment but looked petulant.)

As a final nail in the coffin, the program described a city where certain important places aligned with the constellation Leo. The alignment wasn't exact, but according to Hancock that doesn't matter. There are a lot more significant places than the 9 or so required to make up the constellation, but according to Hancock that doesn't matter either. I can't remember the full list, but I had to laugh when they started to mention Madison Square Gardens, Grand Central Station, a theatre, a police station... The places were all in New York!

You missed out the criticism that Orion only lines up with the pyramids of Giza if you turn the Earth (or the sky) upside down. (Hancock dismissed this as 'pedantic and ungenerous'). There was a wonderful lecture by Damian Thompson at this year's Fortean Times Unconvention on the world of Cult Archaeology, citing dozens of such examples.

The best thing about the Ankor Wat alignment was that it required you to plot the temples on a map, with most of them as dots and one as a bloody great graphic with four corners.

Another problem with Hancock's work is his claim that the Sphinx is older than everyone says it is. He claims 12,500 years to line up with Leo (I keep meaning to try and find out if the Egyptian star maps on the tomb roof came close to identifying that constellation with the lion), and says that the geologists all support him. Thing is, although many geologists cite water-action weathering as evidence that the Sphinx is older than the conventional date, they do not push it back further than about half that distance; say 6,000 years.

I'd say poor Graham, but he has more money than I can even imagine.

On this kind of subject I recommend Graham Phillips, who if not more convincing than Hancock is a far more entertaining writer (and speaker, if you get the chance to see him). He puts Atlantis in the Mediterranean, by-the-by, largely in passing whilst using the eruption of Thera to account for the Great Plagues of Egypt.

The Prophet

Good stuff Prophet . I think although less tangible than other evidence to rip Hancock to shreds here are a couple of things that strike me about him

1. He sometimes harps on about the "intellectual trail" set by our forefathers that he sees it as his mission to unravel. I find this patronising in the extreme, like the Emperors New Clothes, he's claiming only "intelligent" can understand his logic. In fact I think its fairer to say only foolish people would be convinced by his flights of fancy.

2. Along the same lines, what makes Hancock think ancient civilisations would busy themselves leaving a trail for us to find in the future? As a society you are usually concerned with the present and don't like to dwell on the possibility of your civilisation dying out. If you have reached that crisis point I suspect that your priorities would focus on immediate survival, not setting some cryptic message in a cacophony of numbers in the off chance that some future civilisation will care to decipher what you've left.

That said he has sold a lot of books and made an awful lot of money. Far more than if he had remained within the realms of good science.

Thanks.

Hancock's style is decidedly Emperor's New Clothes. Anyone who disagrees with him is hide-bound, closed-minded, 'pedantic and ungenerous' or just stupid. He has a great tendency - especially in his television presentations - to state things as obvious, so that anyone who feels a need to say; "What the heck does that mean then?" risks looking foolish.

But if you are a truly enlightened society, you concern yourself with all peoples at all times. Then of course it all goes wrong anyway, otherwise they'd still be around, wouldn't they.

Or are they here after all?

The secret of these books involves working your evidence througha series of steps. In the first chapter it occurs, you present a possibility; in the next chapter, that possibility becomes a probability; in the next, it becomes 'as we have seen/shown...'. If it turns up again, 'everybody knows that...'

It's a matter of searching for evidence that supports the theories, rather than for theories that fit the evidence. Bad research, bad archaeology, bad science.

And a lot he cares. Damian Thompson finished his lecture with the following anecdote regarding one of the godfathers of cult archaeology:

After a talk, Erick von Dannekin (sp?) was approached by a reporter, who asked him: "Do you really believe all that?" To which von Dannekin replied; "Let me drive you home in my Rolls Royce."

The Prophet

Hancock's theories on the Pyramids have also been ripped to shreds in a book called, 'Giza: The Truth' (can't remember the authors). I'm always a bit wary of books with titles like that. The truth according to whom? However, this one *is* good. The authors take a look at all the theories that have been advanced for who built the pyramids, how, when and why. They examine othodox and unorthodox theories and, in all cases, if a theory has merit they say so. If not, they say that too. From what I can see, they have tried to be open-minded and look at all theories fairly, but even they cannot accept Hancock's ideas.

I see that the pyramids were in fact designed by Scots, well Orcadians anyway. It says here. To digress.

I know that you're joking, having been to Orkney several times. Others might take you seriously, though.

Ms Dragon, please see front page of 'The Independent' today! (I am not above pulling legs, but this is a real quote!)

I don't read newspapers. They're all biased in their reporting, one way or another. And even the so-called 'quality' papers have been known to print cr@p.

As for the Scots or the Orcadians being responsible for the pyramids, how did they get to Egypt in the first place? The pyramids were built 4000 - 5000 years ago. There wasn't much contact between Egypt and what became Britain back then. And the Scots / Orcadians didn't have the knowledge to design that kind of structure. If they did, why isn't there any evidence of it in Scotland? The standing stones up there aren't aligned with any accuracy, the way the pyramids are, and they don't require a great deal of architectural knowledge. OK, so Skara Brae dates back to about the time of the pyramids, but it's not exactly on the same level, is it? Maes Howe required some building ability and is sort of pyramidal (well, more like a low, flat cone, actually), but is more recent than Skara Brae.

So I'd be interested to know who came up with this theory and what they based it on.

I've just read the article in the Independent's website. It sounds distinctly Hancockian to me. If those men had ever been to Orkney they would have found no evidence of astronomical knowledge beyound the general alignment of things on moonrises / moonsets, or sunrises / sunsets. The same applies to Scotland as a whole. For proof, see the Ring of Brodgar or the Stones of Stenness. Also, Skara Brae shows no evidence of skilled stonemasons.

And where do they get evidence that Orcadians dressed their buildings in white quartz? As far as I know, there isn't any on Orkney, so where did the Orcadians get it from, especially in sufficient quantities to dress a building? Orkney was never a rich area, so they would have had difficulty buying it. The Egyptians didn't use white quartz either, as far as I'm aware. They used limestone. I believe the first pyramids weren't dressed, so the Egyptians could have come up with the idea on their own for later pyramids.

OK, you asked, so I'll quote.(well the gist, anyway)

The book is 'Uriel's Machine: The Ancient Origins of Science' by Dr Robert Lomas, IT lecturer at Bradford Uni and a Dr Christopher Knight. They say that Orcadians were cladding their buildings in white quartz in 3800BC. A clear "audit trail" shows how they invented the technique. No such evidence of independent innovation can be found in Egypt. The same techniques are apparently used in the Pyramids. "There is a very strong possibility they took the technology to Egypt via Crete. They travelled extensively by sea." Other than the Orcadians and the Egyptians no other people used the same cladding technique.

And I offer my apologies to the thread for the diversion.