IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Becoming the witness | Main | Do stand-up and be counted »

Comments

In 1702 there was a mysterious and ancient clay tablet discovered by a Franciscan missionary in what is now the US state of Nebraska. It contained translations of various place names from Native American into Scandanavian languages. It is called the prairierosetta stone by archiologists. From this tablet it can be determined that the name for Atlantis translated into English is Springfield.

If a group of scientists thinks they've found Atlantis, they're probably right. Springfield (Atlantis) is everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield


(Yes, this is a joke.)

Heh. Not bad, hoaxter.

Unless they've already found some killer artifacts or archaeological evidence, this seems oddly premature and very, very risky - much like the breathless announcement by the NASA astrobiologist (ok, that still sounds to me the equivalent of being a "Jetsons-flying-car engineer") who said he "found life" in meteors. He's now getting a good bit of slap-back from many NASA colleagues, and I wonder if that's in store for our Atlantis-finders.

I am particularly leery since the Atlantis announcement is associated with the National Geographic. Sad to say, the once-great NG, at least its tv wing, is just another cable-tv huckster now. NG is indistinguishable from Discovery or The Learning Channel cable networks. Next stop down the ladder for NatGeo are grossly speculative, embarrassingly unscientific and un-sourced History-Channel-style programs. Oh, wait, too late: they've already clutched at the "Da Vinci Code" offal left by Dan Brown, and tried to muscle in on Loren Coleman's territory with "searches" for various cryptids. What other proof of NG's conscious decision to abandon genuine scientific enquiry in favor of snake oil sales than their choice of Zahi Hawass as life-partner?

It's shameful, but NG simply has no credibility left. So I think I'll use my jaundiced eye on this one until we get some verifiable proof.

Atlantis was supposed to be a city of concentric rings, so it would be interesting to see if it has that design. Otherwise, there have been several other candidate sites, including Crete. What would make the Spanish site more likely is what I want to know.

Also, isn't Atlantis just supposed to be an old myth with no reference to reality? ;-)

dmduncan, Plato related the story of Atlantis as if it was historical fact; more or less.

It was Edgar Cayce (the so called 'sleeping prophet') that really took Atlantis to mythological proportions. His version was complete with 'Atlanteans' having technological and spiritual advancement beyond what we have today, including lazer technology, direct two way communication with god.

"Atlantis was supposed to be a city of concentric rings, so it would be interesting to see if it has that design."

From the news story: "... buried in the vast marshlands of the Dona Ana Park, [scientists] believe that they pinpointed the ancient, multi-ringed dominion known as Atlantis."

I don't know if "multi-ringed" necessarily implies "concentric rings," but it could.

"What would make the Spanish site more likely is what I want to know."

The researchers believe that a series of sites with a similar layout in central Spain are "'memorial cities,' built in Atlantis' image by its refugees after the city's likely destruction by a tsunami....
Atlantis residents who did not perish in the tsunami fled inland and built new cities there."

The site's location also matches up with Plato's description better than some of the other alleged Atlantises.

Interesting stuff. Whether or not it's Atlantis (if there ever was such a place), it's still neat to see these very ancient sites rediscovered on the sea floor.

I plan to devout two hours of my life to the Atlantis special tonight because regardless it seems to be interesting.

I really expected more out of National Geographic but it looks like they are in a competitio­n with The History Channel with who can come up with the most hyperbole in pseudo-sci­entific speculatio­n.

First strike is the cinematogr­aphy, it looked like they were trying to do "The Bourne Archeologi­st" with fast edits of people looking at satellite pictures and computer screens. Sorry but they should of left that technique to "CSI", they do it much better.

Next they waste 10 minutes talking about the Minoan's to then say, "Oh, it wasn't them anyways" (I'm paraphrasi­ng)

Only actual physical evidence was two little stone statues found on the site.

They tried to convince the viewer that satellite images showed concentric circles, a distinctiv­e feature of Atlantis' as described by Plato, by superimpos­ing a graphic of concentric circles over what looked like a simple plain marshland.

I could keep on going but honestly don't feel like wasting more time on a show that was sloppy with it's science, badly edited, full of misdirecti­on and that in the end didn't answer anything.

Thanks for the review, Victor. I don't get the NG channel as part of my cable package, so I didn't see the show. Sounds like I didn't miss anything.

This is just so sad. NatGeo has truly sold its priceless birthright for a mess of pottage.

The comments to this entry are closed.