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

The theory was originated by Robert Lomas of Bradford University, and his collaborator Christopher Knight. This should tell you all you need to know.

The claims are based on the megalithic yard, a standard unit which - with a little fudging - can be seen to be used in a number of prehistoric sites. They claim that this measurement, along with other Orcadian building technology (with Knight and Lomas doubtless developed by proto-Freemasons) was given to pilgrims 'all over Britain' and from there travelled to Brittany, and on to Egypt (presumably).

Gah!

Frankly, the papers are pretty far behind in this, since it featured in their book, Uriel's Machine, which has been out long enough and came in for a fair savaging from Thompson at the UnCon.

As for the widespread appearance of pyramid design - and someday I hope to develop a variant on Tom Lehrer's song, Lobachevsky, itself swiped affectionately from Danny Kaye's Stanislovski, about Immanuel Velakofski and the secret of success in cult archaeology - I'd just like to say now that if I were trying to build a megalithic structure without serious mortaring technology, I'd make it wide at the bottom and narrow at the top too.

If anyone really thinks that a single culture originated these programmes across the globe, I'd ask what their explanation is for the fact that the ceremonial spaces in an Egyptian pyramid are inside, and those in South America are outside.

The Prophet

Please note the use of the phrase: "There is a strong possibility that...", cult archaeologese for: "There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that...but wouldn't it be cool."

Knight and Lomas make Hancock look like the model of scientific method. The rest of Uriel's machine is all about how the Apocryphal Book of enoch describes a journey to Britain by my fellow Prophet, based - I believe - on the phrase: "He went West."

Don't let the Doctorates fool you; in this context they mean nothing. Likewise when Knight and Lomas wanted to show that the unfinished portion of the contentious Rosslyn chapel had never been intended to be completed, they got a Cambridge professor to back them up, not mentioning that he was a professor of (IIRC) Geology rather than of, say, architecture or engineering.

The Prophet.

I did comment, in my last post, that I had read the article on the Independent's website and thought the theory was cr@p. It's nice to know I'm not alone.

In the program I mentioned in an earlier posting, archaeologists said that there is evidence both, in Egypt and in Central America, that the various civilisations developed pyramid-building independently and over a period of time. This knocks the 'Atlantean-influence' idea on the head, especially as the pyramids were developed 3000 - 4000 years as well as several thousand miles apart. The archaeologists also said that, if you want to build a tall structure without architectural help (like flying-buttresses), the pyramid is the only way to do it.

When anybody comes up with expressions like 'Megalithic yard' or 'audit trail', alarm bells start ringing. People have used similar terms to prove things about the Pyramids, with little / no success. And, as I have said more than once, I have been to Orkney and seen some of it's prehistoric sites. IMHO, that's more than you can say for these guys. I think a lot of people would go for their theories because they *don't* know much about Orkney or it's pre-history. I'm not a historian, archaeologist or architect, but I have seen enough and read enough to know that this theory won't hold water, no matter what you do to it.

Your last post came up while I was typing mine, hence I made no reference.

I don't have a great deal of truck with the Megalithic yard, although the Ad Gefrin foot is a different matter (being a unit measurement postulated for the construction on a single site).

As for holding water, that's the real trick of these theories: Not to make them hold water, but to make them _appear_ to hold water. Obfuscation is the secret of success in cult archaeology, to direct the reader's (or viewer's) attention away from the holes in your theory, towards the 'evidence', and at the same time to build evidence from supposition and declamation. Like a magician's trick, it relies on people not looking too hard, taking a lot on faith and not questioning.

That's why these theories hold up so poorly under analysis, and why the theorists fall apart so often on other people's TV programmes. I think some of them truly believe in what they write; others are just cynical opportunists.

On which subject I still have plans to write and publish my study of the secret links between the Order of the Poor Knights of Christ and the temple of Solomon and the Voodoo Religions of the Caribbean. My big evidence? 'Everyone knows' that Voodoo priests use Tarot cards (it was in James Bond; it must be true), and 'it has been well-established' that the Templars created the Tarot as an arcane tool for teaching their heretical Gnostic interpretation of the Christian faith; therefore 'we can easily see' that the Templars were a major moving force in the formalisation of the anti-establishment (anti-Papist, anti-Catholic government) voodoo religions following their formal disbanding ('which is commonly acknowledged' not to have been the end of them at all) and debunking to their secret colonies in the New world (which 'we know' they had established thanks to the illustration of corn cobs in the decoration of Rosslyn chapel).

Oh yeah. Graham Hancock, eat your heart out.

The Prophet.

Put me down for a copy when it's published. I have a wobbly table that needs propping up!

You can prove anything given the right methods. Back when I was at University we used orthodox processual archaeological analysis - from the point of view of a future archaeological dig in the vents that we were all recorded in place by some frightful cataclysm - to divide my room into a male area, a female area and a sacred exclusion zone, firmly establish it as a place of worship with levels representing earth, sky and underworld and assign the six of us clerical or civil rank depending on our relative positions in reference to the sacred and profane centres.

The next year we established a similar theory for a friend's room, proving conclusively - among other things - that the computer was seen as the source of all peace and prosperity.

Total rubbish of course, but our reasoning was flawless.

The Prophet.

Just curious as to what would happen in such a situation... if, let us say, Atlantis were to have existed and actually sunk, instead of all this business of sneaking around and assuming fake identities, then what would happen to the fabled continent? Would it merely stay where it plopped down, or would it continue it's inexorable dance with the other tectonic plates? Because if that were the case, then wouldn't it be possible that it could have moved from it's original sinking; and is still trekking about to this day? Just wondering. And anyhow, regardless of what ACTUALLY happened, I think the idea of a civilization sinking beneath the waves is very grand and romantic, so at least it has provided us with a spark for our imaginations.

--Doyle Reaction, of the Reaction Brothers
Blaine Reaction Doyle Reaction Thaddeus Reaction

If Atlantis did exist, and if it was originally in the Mediterranean when it disappeared, then it should still be pretty much where it was. Underwater archaeologists (don't know the correct term, but there are some) would be able to find traces of the island and its buildings).

If Atlantis was in the middle of the Atlantic when it disappeared, you wouldn't find much evidence of it, depending on where it was. This is because the Atlantic is widening as time passes. If Atlantic had been as big as the ancient people believed, it would have had to have been right in the middle. This means that the widening of the Atlantic ridge would destroy any evidence of the island.

There seems to be a general misconception in this thread that the author of the original article is referring to Antarctica sliding south on its own, while all of the other islands and continents stayed still. This is incorrect. The article refers to a theory known as "earth crust displacement", in which the entire crust of the planet moves over the mantle like the skin of an orange. Thus, if Antarctica was near the equator, western Africa would be near the north pole and would have a climate similar to that of Siberia, and an icecap would form over the central Atlantic.

If Atlantis was Antarctica, Plato's flood (which, incidentally, might also be the source for the Noah flood myth, versions of which can be found all over the world) would have been caused by an earth crust displacement which moved Atlantis to the South Pole. Because the ice at the old poles would have been moved to the equatorial regions, the icecaps would have melted and added to the tidal waves and rising sea levels caused by the catastrophic movement of the crustal displacement. Atlantis (now at the South Pole) would have been covered in water, as would most of the land. Eventually, however, when new ice caps formed and the flood waters settled, civilization could have begun anew.

BTW, I've read some of Graham Hancock's work; while I don't subsribe to much of it, he puts forward some interesting theories, and I'm not one to shoot something down without looking at it carefully first. Still, a lot of stuff that's connected to earth crust displacement and Atlantis=Antarctica theories are, no matter how interesting, mostly speculative, and we'll have to wait for future research to catch up with our rampant imaginations before we can make any definitive conclusions in that area.

I wonder how many more times I'm going to have to say this!

It doesn't matter whether you call it continental drift, earth crust displacement, or any other term that takes your fancy. Antarctica *cannot* have been Atlantis. Antarctica was cold when dinosaurs walked the earth. When the climate changed so that Antarctica froze, the dinosaurs died out in that part of the world. Dinosaurs pre-date civilisation by a long time, so the chances of Antarctica being the site of such a "major" civilisation are zero. I have already mentioned the Dry Valley, 50 miles inland and thousands of feet up, where there are 'mummified' seals that are thousands of years old. There are NO archaeological remains which, considering the Antarctic is comparatively untouched, there should be. What more do I have to say to convince you?

I've just been reading over the old postings again. This relates to somebody saying that Graham Philips relates the Plagues of Egypt to the explosion of Thera / Santorini.

About a year ago there was a program about the plagues of Egypt. An epidemiologist and a researcher got together to try to determine whether the plagues could have happened as described in the Bible. They got various experts involved with questions over the different plagues. They ended up with a series of perfectly natural occurrences that could have taken place over the space of 6 - 9 months, each of which matched one of the plagues. It was a fascinating program, so good that I taped it when it was repeated, and it was *all* scientifically based and the reasoning held water!

I'm not religious, but sometimes it's nice to see that the Bible *can* be "proved", even (or especially!) if the proof doesn't depend on divine intervention.

I'd like to hear a little bit more about the seals...it's interesting (albeit a tad grotesque), and I'd honestly never heard of the "mummified" seals before. Additionally, "thousands of years old" is a pretty big range; could you narrow that down a bit for me?

What are your thoughts on the Piri Reis map?

I can't be more specific on the age of the seals, as the book only says 'thousands of years'. The age *was* arrived at by carbon-dating, which only gives ages to within a certain range, but should still be fairly accurate. Look at it this way - how long does it take for a patch of land to move 50 miles?

I don't know much about the Piri Reis map. Is that the one that Erich von Daniken referred to in one of his books, back in the '80s? I tend to take the attitude that if somebody can prove that it's as old as they claim, then it's genuine. Until then it's a bit suspect. I know that people have evaluated it and said that it's extremely accurate, in days when the areas were supposedly unknown. However, I don't know if anybody's actually carbon-dated it.

I guess that, in X-Files terms, I'm Scully with a bit of Mulder - I'd like there to be 'something out there', but I'd need solid proof of it before I believe in it!

Fifty miles would equate to thousands of years if we stuck strictly to the continental drift model. With earth crust displacement (which you seem to keep throwing out the window), it could be shortened drastically (as in, days instead of millennia). Crustal displacement and continental drift are two very, very different theories (and continental drift isn't so much a theory anymore - it's accepted, and pretty much proven as far as I know; on the other hand, crustal displacement is still very much theoretical).

I don't know a whole lot about von Daniken's books; a friend of mine invited me to read them, but what with aliens coming down in their 'chariots of the gods' it seemed to me to be more like science fiction than archaeology. I never read more than the summary on the back of _Chariots of the Gods_, so I wouldn't know if he talks about the Reis map.

Taking your X-Files approach, I suppose I'm more Mulder with a little bit of Scully...I'm willing to look into the crazy theories, but before I support it, there has to be hard evidence (which is why I can advance crazy ideas like "maybe Atlantis is Antarctica" - I believe it's possible, but without evidence, there's no way to know). Sometimes, though, I let my desire to believe get in the way of flawless reasoning, direct logic, and unbiased scientific reporting. Because hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?

A personal problem I have with many theories about the Atlantis myth is that so many place Atlantis inside the Mediterranean. Being, as it is, that we have only one original source for the story (Plato), it seems logical that we should take his word for it when it comes to details like the location of the sunken continent. He places Atlantis "outside the pillars of Hercules" (the straits of Gibraltar), and if we're going to take his writing at face value for everything else, we might as well listen when he tells us where the bloody place is.

I've heard an interesting theory that Atlantis is actually Cuba. Just by looking at a map, you can see that if the sea level was twenty meters or so lower, there would be a lot more exposed land. It's certainly beyond the pillars of Hercules, and while it's not the size of "Libya and Asia combined", it's quite a bit larger than Thera or Santorini.

Then there's the whole business with the "road" out by Bimini Island. I've never seen it from the air, but underwater it looks pretty natural.

One of the reasons why a lot of theories place Atlantis in the Mediterranean is that there are thought to be problems with early translations or copyings of Plato. I don't know if his original work exists, so it may not be possible to check. One translation of a dialogue called 'Timaeus' gives 'in front of the Pillars of Hercules', while the dialogue 'Critias' gives 'outside the Pillars of Hercules', so you pay your money and take your choice. It's believed that 'bigger than Asia and Libya' should be 'between Libya and Asia' Besides, the ancients used to exaggerate like mad, which is why Herodotus wasn't believed when he wrote about the Phoenicians sailing all the way round Africa. It's now known that they probably did.

I'm willing to entertain theories that sound crazy, provided that there is *some* evidence to back them. I have problems with the Piri Reis map because it's too good and doesn't fit in with what we know about the technology of the time. Unless, of course, you're prepared to believe that aliens were involved in creating it, which I'm not. On the other hand, an Egyptologist came up with a theory that the 'Old Kindom' in Egypt failed because climate change caused the Nile to fail for a number of years. Some other Egyptologists didn't want to consider his theory, because 'The Nile cannot fail. It always floods.' However, he was able to provide pretty solid evidence that not only does the flood level vary appreciably, but it *did* fail at about the time in question.

In front of, outside, heck...it's all Greek to me. I had heard some other business like "Plato added zeros to all his numbers" or something like that, but I'm not too sure about details. Additionally, if something is between Libya and Asia, doesn't that place it in the Mediterranean? How can it be both outside and in front of the pillars of Hercules, and between Libya and Asia, all at the same time?

It makes me wonder if perhaps he just made it up as a fable to warn against greed and corruption.

As an aside, what are your thoughts on Cuba/Bimini (Bimini especially; I don't know too much about that whole road thing...)?

As I'm sure you've guessed, I'm not one for the hard-core conservatist "It _must_ be our way, because that's what we've believed for hundreds of years, despite the fact that all evidence points to something completely different" point of view, and I'll only defend a theory that can hold a bit of water on its own. On the other hand, I have no problem putting forward ideas that are merely speculative, because hey! maybe someone will come up with a support.

Re. The plagues of Egypt.

I saw that programme shortly after I read the Graham Philips book, Act of God, and frankly I liked his work better. The epidemiologists specifically set out to establish a series of linked events, but for at least three of the plagues they had nothing better than 'this stuff happens in Egypt'. I thought what they had was fairly strong, but incomplete.

Philips manages to nail examples of similar phenomena to each plague, all linked to volcanic eruptions, although admittedly not in the biblical order, and works in the pillar of fire/pillar of smoke that guided the Israelites, the rise and fall of the Amarna period and the parting of the Red Sea. It's also a cracking read, and the plague stuff is scientifically plausible, if not provable - which is as much as can be said for the other guys.

Philips also points out that there is nothing inherently blasphemous or sacrilegeous in claiming that the plagues were based on natural phenomena. After all, if God is all he's made out to be, why couldn't he use a volcano to do his work? He made it.

The Prophet.

The whole point of the 'mistranslation / mis-copied' theory is that the only sensible place for Atlantis, if it ever did exist, *is* the Mediterranean, hence the Thera / Santorini theory. The point, according to archaeologists and historians, is that Atlantis need not have existed in order for pyramids and hieroglyphic writing to spring up on the opposite sides of the Atlantic. So it is possible that the whole thing is a myth. Even if Plato was writing down something that he'd been told was fact, it's possible that the person who told him about it (or somebody a long way back in the past) made the whole thing up. Most myths start out as somebody trying to explain why things are a certain way, or to put a moral point across. One way or another, I *don't* believe Atlantis existed. At least, not in the way people always claim that it did.

On the subject of the Plagues: I assume the three plagues The Prophet is objecting to are hail, locusts and the dust storm. What's wrong with using reasoning like 'This stuff happens'? Why do *all* the plagues have to be linked to a single cataclysmic occurrence? The point the men were trying to make was that all the 'plagues' could have been perfectly natural happenings (which your guy Philips doesn't seem to object to, per se), each bad enough on their own but catastrophic when they came one after the other. When I watched the program I wasn't after the televisual equivalent of 'a cracking read'. I just wanted reasonable scientific proof. IMHO, they managed to do that *and* get the plagues in the right order, which is more than your book seems to do. As for all the other stuff, well the men weren't interested in that.

PS My Religious Education teacher (a C of E Reverend) said that the Bible is mostly myths, parables and laws, with very little fact. I guess he'd put the pillar of fire / smoke and the parting of the Red Sea into the myth category. Besides, why should God use a volcano when there other, much simpler, means exist to do the same thing?

According to something that I read recently, Santorini (which was known as Thera) could well have been the hub of the Minoan's trading empire, from which their influence stretched to all parts of the eastern Med and beyond.
The volcanic explosion at Thera occured about 50 years before the Minoan civilisation went belly up, and this is taken to be the prime cause because:
a) If your main trading centre turns into a volcano & then sinks, this is a very bad thing;
b) If the majority of your towns & cities are on a coastline that is hit by a large tsunami, this is not good for the people's morale (or lives);
c) If the climate is altered by the volcanic eruption (with an average cooling of a couple of degrees across Europe), this can easily lead to failed harvests for years, which could easily lead to the wheels coming off your civilisation.
The fact that the legend was written by Plato, who heard it from the grandson of Solon, the Greek ruler who originally heard of the story in Egypt. The original placement of Atlantis (or Keftiu as the Egyptians called it) according to Egyptian legend was west of Egypt, not west of the Mediterranean.
There's loads of other evidence that points to Thera being the origin of the Atlantis myth, but the main sticking point is the date. Plato states that the civilization was destroyed "9000" years ago, and the actual date from Plato's time to the Thera eruption is closer to "900" years. But this may be an exaggeration, of just an error that crept in as the story was passed along.
It makes an interesting and plausible theory, but that's all it is. A theory.

Yippee! Someone else who doesn't want Antarctica to be Atlantis and is happy for it to be in the Mediterranean. I saw a program recently that said that, somewhere on Thera, there is a wall painting depicting an island in the middle of a large lake or lagoon, possibly where the crater of the volcano was. This island held Thera's main town. As the legend of Atlantis refers to a series of concentric islands, this sort of fits in.