JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

In Major New Article, Graham Hancock Repeats Previous Anti-Scientist Claims, Defends the Search for Atlantis

5/11/2017

76 Comments

 
​I will confess that I am not a regular visitor to Graham Hancock’s website, so I am sometimes a few days behind on his latest postings. The last time he wrote an article for his site was in December, and frankly he had sort of fallen off of my radar so that I didn’t realize until now that he published a monumentally long new diatribe on April 30. In the new article, Hancock alleges that scientists “consistently suppress and marginalise new knowledge that conflicts with established positions.” The proximate cause of the article was the appearance of news pieces on the websites of National Geographic and Smithsonian Magazine, which Hancock takes as proof that science is a conspiracy to impose dogma.
​Hancock, of course, sees news accounts as the same as scientific journals, and both as arbiters of what is and is not “true” for dogmatic scientists.
 
The Smithsonian piece is actually a reprint from Hakai magazine, and it explores the reaction that Jacques Cinq-Mars faced in the 1980s and 1990s when his excavations suggested the presence of humans in the Americas in 24,000 years ago—before the Clovis horizon. The National Geographic news article retells the story of J Harlen Bretz (yes, “J” was his whole first name), who intuited correctly in the 1920s that certain geological features in Washington State were formed by a massive Ice Age flood, but who faced scorn from his colleagues because he could not provide a feasible mechanism to explain how this flood would have occurred, something that would only come to pass decades later.
 
Both pieces describe situations in which the most dominant personalities in a scientific field resisted new evidence and sometimes engaged in personal attacks against the claimant. In both situations, course correction was a long and slow process, occurring only when the weight of the evidence became overwhelming enough to overcome the previous paradigm and demonstrate that paradigm’s falseness. However, the cases are not quite as clear-cut as Hancock implies. The Cinq-Mars case seems to best support the claim that humans lived in Beringia for millennia before populating the Americas after the ice sheets melted. Hancock denies that the Bretz case is a “true” paradigm shift because, he says, the current consensus offers too many concessions to “gradualism.”
 
Hancock, instead of seeing a paradigm shift as evidence that even entrenched ideas can be corrected by the ruthless application of new evidence, prefers to read both incidents as evidence that elite scientists engaged in a massive campaign to reinforce outdated paradigms.
 
The largest part of the article is devoted to rehashing Bretz’s story from Magicians of the Gods. The short version is that geologists came to accept that the scablands of Washington State had been formed by a massive flood once they recognized a mechanism by which it could occur, specifically by the catastrophic draining of glacial Lake Missoula in one massive deluge. However, Bretz originally doubted this mechanism, believing that the lake held too little water to achieve the erosion seen in the landscape. Instead, he first thought the ice sheet north of Washington had partially melted, creating the flood. Hancock prefers this version, even though Bretz himself rejected it, because, following amateur geological speculator Randall Carlson, Hancock wants to claim that a comet hit the Earth and melted the ice. Hancock paints Bretz’s growing acceptance of the evidence that Lake Missoula had emptied catastrophically (and that it might have happened in up to eight stages) as a capitulation to “critics” rather than an adherence to evidence. In Hancock’s view, to propose a new idea is heroic, but to accept advice and feedback—or concede that anyone else might have a point—is weakness.
 
Thus, Hancock, even in celebrating Bretz, damns him for allowing the “uniformitarians” and “gradualists” to propose that the flooding occurred regularly, at intervals, perhaps, as modern geologists suggest, up to ninety times over thousands of years, rather than single-mindedly promoting a single catastrophic event, one that would conveniently help Hancock’s comet case. Hancock summarizes the modern view and then says:
This is all very reassuring, of course, but suppose that Bretz’s original insight was correct all along? Suppose that the “unique assemblage of erosional forms and glacial water deposits” that he invoked as evidence for his “Spokane Flood” can only be resolved “into a genetic scheme” if the time allowed for their creation be “very short, volume very large, velocity very high and erosion chiefly by plucking of the jointed basalt”? Suppose in other words that what happened in North America at the end of the Ice Age really was a single, sudden, cataclysmic flood – something unprecedented and unmatched since?
 
Suppose it really was a debacle?
​Suppose Hancock had evidence… He is happy to trash geologists but offers nothing against the modern consensus except for what-ifs. He argues that the heat from the comet impact would have melted the ice, but he chooses not to explain why this resulted in catastrophic, earth-changing flooding only in one spot. If the comet hit near the Great Lakes, shouldn’t similar flooding be seen elsewhere besides just the other end of the continent? Hancock says that one of four hypothesized comet fragments happened to hit the ice north of the scablands, and created unique destabilization there, but it seems that this is his own amateur conclusion and not a geologist’s expert opinion. He also fantasizes about how Bretz might have been a warrior for catastrophism to the end had the comet’s impact been known in his day. From this, he concludes the following about the supposed unwillingness of science to adopt hypotheses in the absence of clear evidence for them:
This is unfortunate and should remind us that all branches of science again and again repeat the same fundamental mistakes – elevating current hypotheses to the status almost of divinely-ordained truths, coming to regard those hypotheses as unchallengeable reference frames through which reality must be viewed, and marginalising, ostracising, humiliating and seeking to destroy the professional reputations of all those who propose alternative hypotheses.
​Thunderous words, but to what end? After alleging that the team studying the alleged Younger Dryas comet impact is suffering from the same intolerance, Hancock lets loose the truth: “Meanwhile my own hypothesis of an advanced civilization of prehistoric antiquity obliterated from the face of the earth during the Younger Dryas ‘window’, is also strengthened by their work.” This gives him license to repeat much of what he has said about the comet over the past few years, and in excruciating detail, detail made all the stranger by the pointlessness of it. Hancock hopes, as we know, that readers will see the comet hypothesis as proof of a lost civilization that it allegedly destroyed; however, logically speaking, there is no reason to make this leap. If, for example, there were first evidence of an Ice Age super-civilization, then we might be justified in looking for a reason it collapsed and vanished; however, absent that evidence, the existence or non-existence of a Younger Dryas comet impact offers no evidence to support or refute the notion of a lost civilization. A destructive agent does not imply a civilization stood to be destroyed, and since we have plenty of human remains and archaeological material from before 10,500 BCE, logically we ought to find some trace of this vanished civilization, if only its tools and trash and grave goods. Hancock tells us that the comet simply incinerated it all, but would any comet whose impact left people and animals alive have truly consumed every last screw, button, or ornament? Indeed, Hancock himself quotes Antonio Zamora, a comet proponent, to describe the impact of the comet, and Zamora’s apocalyptic description says only that animals within 100 km of the impact were killed instantly, while debris and ice thrown up by the crash rained down catastrophically for 1000 km around the impact site. While horrific, this is not enough to wipe away a whole civilization supposedly centered somewhere on the other side of the world. His claim is stranger still when he tells us that Göbekli Tepe sprang up out of nowhere, with the implication that survivors of the lost civilization constructed it. They survived, but nothing else?
 
Hancock hopes to further muddy the waters of his core claim by devoting a section of his article to the question of who were the first Americans. He describes the process by which the Clovis-first paradigm collapsed, but he leaves out some very important facts. First, the Clovis-first paradigm began in the middle twentieth century and lasted less than fifty years before facts overwhelmed it—facts that began to come to light only about 20 years before the paradigm’s collapse began. Hancock’s lost civilization hypothesis is as old as Greece and Rome, but in modern form goes back to the late nineteenth century. Despite more having more than three times the amount of time that Clovis-first paradigm lasted, not a shred of evidence has emerged for an ice age super-civilization.
 
Therefore, Hancock’s words ring hollow when he says:
It’s high time for a change, indeed for a paradigm shift. When it comes I suspect it will reveal not only the true cause of the mysterious disappearance of the Clovis people but also vast and previously unexplored vistas of American prehistory. […] [I]t is intriguing, to say the least, that [the comet impact] coincides so precisely with the date that Plato gives us for the destruction, and submergence beneath the sea, of the lost civilization of Atlantis. As I hope I have demonstrated in this article, historians and archaeologists will go through Houdini-like contortions of reason and common-sense rather than consider the possibility that any aspect of their paradigm of prehistory might be wrong — so I am not surprised that they have never attempted to investigate at face value the Atlantis tradition of a devastating global flood 11,600 years ago.
​It's probably worth noting that Atlantis was not destroyed in a global flood according to Plato. In the Timaeus, the Egyptian priests state specifically that no flood ever touched Egypt, and it is evident from the narrative that Athens and Greece were untouched by the waters that closed up over Atlantis—having had the Greek armies swallowed up in the Earth instead! “In a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea” (trans. Jowett). The connection to a “universal” flood came from later efforts to read Atlantis as a tale of the antediluvian Nephilim of the Bible.
 
I would like to think that geologists could identify the evidence of a global flood. Hancock, after all, concedes as much when discussed the Washington scablands and the geologists who recognized the remains of a flood there. Yet he seems to think that geologists have blindly chosen not to consider whether any geologically significant events happened everywhere on the face of the Earth around 9,600 BCE. He cites global “flood traditions”—i.e., Noah’s Flood—as reason to suspect the existence of such evidence, and yet he seems oblivious to how close he hews to the Flood geology of the creationists, and the early years of geology when Noah’s Flood was taken as a given, before the long and careful work of studying the Earth revealed no evidence such a universal disaster.
 
Hancock concludes the piece, as he did Magicians of the Gods, by warning that another comet is likely to hit soon, destroying us all. He seems to expect us to agree that the existence of comets proves that one destroyed Atlantis, even though none of this makes any logical sense without evidence of the existence of Atlantis in the first place.
76 Comments
Only Me
5/11/2017 10:52:27 am

"professional reputations"

Hancock does not have one.

“This is unfortunate and should remind us that all branches of science again and again repeat the same fundamental mistakes – elevating current hypotheses to the status almost of divinely-ordained truths, coming to regard those hypotheses as unchallengeable reference frames through which reality must be viewed, and marginalising, ostracising, humiliating and seeking to destroy the professional reputations of all those who propose alternative hypotheses."

This is why Hancock has no professional reputation. Replace "all branches of science" with "fringe authors/historians" and that entire statement is an accurate description of himself and others like him.

"historians and archaeologists will go through Houdini-like contortions of reason and common-sense rather than consider the possibility that any aspect of their paradigm of prehistory might be wrong"

Same as above.

Hancock wants credibility he hasn't earned and will never get. His fable is more important than history, science and fact.

Reply
Shane Sullivan
5/11/2017 11:52:18 am

"His claim is stranger still when he tells us that Göbekli Tepe sprang up out of nowhere, with the implication that survivors of the lost civilization constructed it. They survived, but nothing else?"

Well, no--but that's because we're looking in the wrong places! Sundaland...Yonaguni...Antarctica...if I say these words over and over, I know it will somehow congeal into a sound argument!

Reply
Uncle Ron
5/11/2017 12:27:59 pm

According to whyfiles.org, "At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water, in the invisible vapor phase. This is enough water to cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with one inch of rain." Since there is much less land area than ocean, if all this water fell onto the planet and the part on land drained into the ocean it would raise the ocean level less than two inches. Ergo: a "global flood" that covers everything is physically impossible.

Reply
Robber
5/11/2017 05:48:14 pm

A 2 inch rise in sea level would be a global catastrophy.

Reply
Americanegro
5/11/2017 07:18:58 pm

It's funny how the oceans stay in that sweet spot that's just 2 inches away from global castastrophe.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain
5/11/2017 08:36:45 pm

It's funny how people choose to live so close to the water that a two-inch rise in the existing sea level would be a catastrophe.

Uncle Ron
5/12/2017 09:21:00 am

It might be a catastrophe but that's not the point. The point is that it is impossible for there to be a global flood, ala' Noah, that covers the entire earth (or even close to it). And, not to put too fine a point on it, it would also be impossible for the atmosphere to precipitate ALL its water.

Joe Scales
5/12/2017 10:28:56 am

So Waterworld is out then?

V
5/14/2017 01:46:21 pm

It would only be "a global catastrophe" because human beings are stupid and arrogant enough to believe that it will never happen and thus have not prepared for it. You know, like how flooding after Katrina was a massive disaster in New Orleans, but plenty of other coastal settlements had significantly less damage because they actually listened to warnings and prepared for what was coming. It wouldn't be particularly catastrophic to most anything other than humans, really.

I say this as someone who would be directly impacted by a 2-inch rise in sea level, since I live on a flood plain. Still, it would only put my front yard under about half an inch of water. I'd still even be able to drive my CAR through it. And yes, I know this for certain, since my yard regularly floods that deep when it rains too heavily.

T. Franke link
5/11/2017 02:02:50 pm

The claims and complaints of Graham Hancock are so insubstantial and superficial that you really have to consider whether it is worth to help him spreading his word. Discussing Atlantis under a non-historical-critical perspective is not very rewarding. Graham Hancock argues with natural science and neglects the philological questions totally, and this is a big mistake.

I recently demonstrated in an Amazon review on Christopher Gill's new booklet on Plato's Atlantis that the established view on Plato's Atlantis indeed is worth to be criticized, but on a totally different level: (a) With substantial arguments on details of which Graham Hancock has no idea, and (b) with acknowledging that doubting the existence of Atlantis is a legitimate point of view.

Find this Amazon review here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1ZLWJR4ON09H1/

The "other side" is not evil, yet maybe dogmatic in a phlegmatic sense: Accepting unwanted arguments is always difficult, for all of us. Yet Graham Hancock just wanted to stir up some movement in the internet.

Reply
Americanegro
5/11/2017 03:00:14 pm

Kudos to Jason for a proper presentation of Plato's Atlantis story, a story about a story about someone telling him a story.

Reply
T. Franke link
5/11/2017 03:12:05 pm

@Americanegro:

A story written down by Egyptians (said in the dialogue), written down by Solon along persons of the planned drama (said in the dialogue), studied in written form by Kritias (said in the dialogue), and then .... (the dialogue situation itself is fictional) .... possibly the written papers finally came into the hands of Plato.

It could well be a written historical tradition. At least, Plato inserts a major praise of the written word into the dialogue.

Of course: It could be all a big deception. But this is the last resort of those who are not trained in historical-critical thinking.

Reply
Americanegro
5/11/2017 07:13:23 pm

So, as I said, a story about a story about someone telling him a story.

As "written" as the Necronomicon.

T. Franke link
5/12/2017 04:02:07 am

@Americanegro:

Well, yes in a certain sense.

But please consider that all our knowledge of ancient history is of this quality. Let's take Julius Caesar for example. We have some ancient manuscripts from ... the Middle Ages! These manuscripts claim to reflect a text from a historian of the 2nd century, e.g. This historian in turn claims to have his knowledge from XY. And so on.

The story of Julius Caesar contains wonders: Bad omen etc. And Caesar is sometimes a god-like persons, sometimes a devil-like. Never a normal person.

What I want to say with this is only: The scrutiny whether Atlantis could be a real (distorted!) historical tradition is not so easy as many think.

Americanegro
5/12/2017 07:53:25 am

We also have a little book that Caesar himself supposedly wrote. Contemporaneous records (carvings in stone and statuary, as well as coinage) suggest he was an actual person who lived at a particular time in a real place and that place is known to us. So not like Atlantis at all.

You strike me as a down-talker. You seem to like to talk down.

David Bradbury
5/12/2017 08:46:00 am

"please consider that all our knowledge of ancient history is of this quality."
Please consider that a great deal of our knowledge of ancient history comes from original, often independently dateable, contemporary artifacts, including, but by no means limited to, written / graphic records.

T. Franke link
5/12/2017 01:56:16 pm

@Americannegro:
@David Bradbury:

Yes, real artefacts! Such as Egyptian buildings, walls, texts! And they are NOT 11000 years old, as Herodotus told us. Is Herodotus now a liar? Did he make it up? No. - And does Egypt exist, although it is not 11000 years old? Yes, it does.

Of course, our knowlege about Julius Caesar is much better than our knowledge about Atlantis, yet this does not show that Atlantis is not a real place. We simply do not know.

By the way, throughout Antiquity there were many authors who were in favour of the existence of Atlantis, and only few (and late) doubters. And the first ones who doubted the timeline were the Christians, because they thougt of a history limited by creation only few thousands of years ago ... nobody before the Christians doubted the timeline.

In my humble opinion, there is a reasonable chance that Atlantis is a real place, behind a distorted historical tradition.

Rather unreasonable is the idea of an invention and deception, our contemporary scholars just get ensnared more and more in the ludicrous consequences this would have. Plato a cynical liar, and his words turned against himself more and more, everywhere irony and deception ... this stops to be a straight way, and Occam's razor does not prefer hypotheses which need a lot of fumbling around.

Americanegro
5/12/2017 05:17:09 pm

[This went in the wrong place, probably my fault or the Atlanteans screwing with me.]

Burden of proof is on you Sir or Madam. "Well, it could be because we don't know" is a very weak argument.

"Is Herodotus now a liar?" No, just misinformed, and not an archaeologist. "Someone a long time ago got something wrong therefore I'm right" is also a very weak argument.

And the Christian timeline came from the Hebrew scriptures. If you want to assert that the pre-Christian Hebrews didn't believe their own version of history, that is of course your right.

"By the way, throughout Antiquity there were many authors who were in favour of the existence of Atlantis, and only few (and late) doubters." So what?

No one's calling "Plato a cynical liar" just a storyteller.

Occam's Razor tells us that a story about a story about someone telling someone a story is very likely just that, a story.

T. Franke link
5/12/2017 05:48:16 pm

@Americannegro:

The burden of proof is ....

(a) proof for what? That Atlantis possibly existed, or that it did exist?

(b) on my side? No. Why should it be? I do not see why the burden of proof should be distributed otherwise than 50:50 in this case. We simply do not know.

If Plato invented the Atlantis story, then he is a VERY cynical liar. Of course, established academics avoid to express this clearly, in order to avoid illuminating the weird consequences their opinion on Atlantis has .....

And above all:

We have a story, which is presented as true story. The presenter is Plato who is very determined to stick to the truth except for very rare occasions. This story does not deviate from possibility more than other stories which are basically true. Why should we assume then, that it is wrong? Why should the burden of proof be more on this than on that side?

David Bradbury
5/12/2017 07:26:53 pm

Plato to Adeimantus (Republic, Book 2):
"Don't you understand that we begin by telling children fables, and the fable is, taken as a whole, false, but there is truth in it also?"

Americanegro
5/12/2017 07:41:38 pm

"The burden of proof is ....

(a) proof for what? That Atlantis possibly existed, or that it did exist?"
_______
Either one is an extraordinary assertion, so burden of proof is stil on you.

"(b) on my side? No. Why should it be? I do not see why the burden of proof should be distributed otherwise than 50:50 in this case. We simply do not know."
_______
Why should I obey the speed limit? It's up to the other cars to keep up with me! Atlantis MIGHT have been on the moon, so it's up to you to disprove it.

"If Plato invented the Atlantis story, then he is a VERY cynical liar. Of course, established academics avoid to express this clearly, in order to avoid illuminating the weird consequences their opinion on Atlantis has ....."
_______
You keep asserting that "cynical liar" stuff. Storyteller telling a story about a story about someone telling someone a story. When archaeologists find Plato's cave I'll start believing in the possibility of Atlantis.

T. Franke link
5/12/2017 07:56:45 pm

@Americanegro:

Plato's cave is an analogy. It is neither a mythos nor a logos. So the comparison is categorially wrong. Every academic who puts forward this argument (some really do, as though ridiculous it is!) have really understood nothing at all.

You should never believe in the existence of Plato's Atlantis! You should be convinced of it, or not. But *believe* is always wrong. Unfortunately, I fear that you believe in the non-existence of Plato's Atlantis. You should not believe!

@David Bradbury:

Your citation is misleading, to say the least. This is only a question on the current situation (what is), but then Socrates (Plato) immediately comes to the question, what shall be:

"Shall we, then, thus lightly suffer our children to listen to any chance stories fashioned by any chance teachers and so to take into their minds opinions for the most part contrary to those that we shall think it desirable for them to hold when they are grown up?"

"By no manner of means will we allow it."

"We must begin, then, it seems, by a censorship cover our storymakers, and what they do well we must pass and what not, reject. ... "

"What sort of stories?"

.... false stories ... Homer e.g. etc. etc. etc.

(Republic II 377a ff.)

The Noble Lie is reserved for very few and strongly limited occasions.

David Bradbury
5/13/2017 05:34:33 am

In Book 3 of the Republic, the discussion about stories continues, considering both the suitability of particular topics, and the suitability of particular storytellers. The conclusion seems to be that storytelling should be a State monopoly, and the topics chosen to promote good behaviour.

T. Franke link
5/13/2017 10:43:19 am

@David Bradbury:

Yes, indeed. And the criterion for preferable stories according to Plato is their truth quality. This is not about manipulating people by arbitrarily choosing some stories, this is about ensuring that people are free from manipulation, and get truthful orientation about reality by truthful stories.

Joe Scales
5/13/2017 12:18:30 pm

"Plato's cave is an analogy."

And his dialogue in regard to Atlantis was not?

T. Franke,
I believe Pluto has a chocolate caramel center. You'll never be able to prove otherwise, so I'm sticking with that.

T. Franke link
5/13/2017 12:40:55 pm

@Joe Scales:

Yes, Joe Scales. We cannot say many things for sure about Atlantis, but we can say this for sure: It is not an analogy like the story of the cave. Plato is so kind to indicate the genre he is using. If he talks of a myth, he says it. If he talks of an analogy, he says it. Etc.

Concerning the chocolate factory: You have not got the idea of seriousness of this whole matter. We modern people have it easy: Atlantis in a literal sense can not be real. But Plato's contemporary people were not in that situation. For them, a story of 9000 years old was not beyond the possible. Because in these days such biased ideas of the past were common. See Herodotus idea of an age of Egypt of 11000 years, and many other Greek authors, including Plato, with the same wrong notion.

Your story should go like this:

"I believe that the facebook company owns a chocolate caramel center".

Well, I have no idea whether this is true, but it does not sound impossible. We all have the idea that facebook is a big company. It could have bought shares of a food company. Why not. It sounds possible. For us.

Joe Scales
5/13/2017 10:31:55 pm

Plato was all analogy, whether he said it or not. He didn't even have the stones to represent his own philosophy... but instead stuck Socrates with it. And yeah, like his dialogues were truly dialogues. Ever try reading one? Socrates would have his say and the other end of the conversation went something like this:

Yes Socrates.
That must be so Socrates.
It cannot be any other way Socrates.
Of course it is Socrates...

And so on and so on.

If you want to go Greek, the pre-Socratics were where it was at. In fact, I don't think any philosopher ever truly got past Heraclitus. But as for my point from my previous post that you seemed to have missed, it's argumentum ad ignorantiam that is your creed. Seems to be in vogue these days.

T. Franke link
5/14/2017 04:14:36 am

@Joe Scales:

What a pity, you did not realize my arguments. No, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, because I do NOT claim (with this argument) that it is true. What I do claim with this argument is: It could be true, it is not so clear that it is not true. But you missed my point fully as is obvious.

And where did I claim that the dialogue situations are real? Quite the contrary, scroll a little up and you will find the following phrase by me: "(the dialogue situation itself is fictional)"

I did not only read the dialogues, I even translated them, in parts .... and you should really think twice. This is not about the pseudo-scientific black-and-white game, it is about a reasonable academic approach towards the question whether Atlantis could be real in the sense of a distorted historical tradition.

Find more here:
http://www.Atlantis-Scout.de/

T. Franke link
5/14/2017 04:16:03 am

Small correction of my previous posting:

"No, it is NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam"

Joe Scales
5/14/2017 10:43:39 am

"What a pity, you did not realize my arguments."


Oh god no, the substance of whatever you're arguing is mind-numbingly boring to me. I won't have any of that. Your form is off however.

T. Franke link
5/14/2017 11:49:45 am

@Joe Scales:

So let us end this conversation.

I agree: The whole argument is not very exciting because in the end we still do not know. It is more about knowing what we do not know. Somehow boring I admit.

To get a fuller understanding of Plato's strange tale it would be worth to study the typical flaws of the Saitic Egyptians which they themselves made concerning their own Egyptian history. From this flawed view came Herodotus flawed view ... and allegedly also Solon's flawed view. It could be - it could not be. Give it a try.

More interesting would be to argue for a certain existence hypothesis. Yet before we can do that we have to ensure the theoretical basis for it. Especially the nature of Platonic Myths, and their various types. Of this on another occasion.

V
5/14/2017 02:21:15 pm

Okay, so...one quick question. Why does Plato have to have been "a very cynical liar" in order to have created a fictional place? Does that make JK Rowling "a very cynical liar" for creating Hogwarts? Does that make Tolkein "a very cynical liar" for creating Middle Earth? Does that make pretty much every writer who hasn't set their work in a strictly-researched real-life setting "a very cynical liar"? Isn't it just far more likely that as a writer of a fictional world, Plato expected his audience to know and understand that this was a fictional place?

Occam's razor says that the the explanation with the least number of assumptions is most likely to be true.

For the premise that Atlantis was at one time a real place, we need to assume:

- That Plato spoke to or received documents from someone about Atlantis.
- That someone named Solon wrote those documents or spoke to someone who conveyed these things to Plato.
- That the Egyptians knew of this place in order to Solon.
- That an entire civilization disappeared, leaving no more trace than the documents in Plato's hands.
- That no one at any point in the chain lied or made up any part of the story.

For the premise that Atlantis is fictional, we need to assume:

- That Plato was writing a fictional play/dialogue/story

While it's still POSSIBLE for Atlantis to have existed, this is clearly NOT a place where we should place a 50-50 weighting on the two premises. The assumption that Plato was writing a fictional play/dialogue/story is a much stronger one than any of the other premises, because Plato is known to have done exactly that in other circumstances. But even if Plato was writing something that he thought to be precisely the truth, how can you begin to assert that nothing he had in his hands was a faked artifact? We do know for certain that faked artifacts DID exist at the time, since there are records of fights over them, and the sheer number of burials of a single mythic figure also dictate that it was pretty impossible for ALL of them to be real. Therefore, the premise that Atlantis was real just keeps getting weaker and weaker.

The thing is, it's not the age of the story that's EVER been the problem. We know for dead certain of events that took place and places that existed from far, far, FAR older times than that. We can trace the domestication of cattle to its origins. We know that art existed more than 20,000 years ago. We can trace the existence of peoples living in parts of Africa and Asia more than 200,000 years ago. The oldest evidence of religious, or at least ritualized, thinking is about 100,000 years ago. The problem with "Atlantis existed" is that the EARLIEST evidence we have is Plato. We have no evidence whatever dating to before that. If it was something real that had existed 9,000 or more years earlier, we SHOULD have at least a little other evidence of it. We can find river-beds that dried up that long ago and burials from that long ago and cave art from that long ago--even under water--so why can't we find a city the size of a small continent from that long ago? Why did the Egyptians, who have records that claim to date back to the same period, not also record this society somewhere OTHER than in documents that supposedly made it to Plato? The Egyptians liked to carve their treaties and major events in STONE. If Atlantis had been a real place, you'd think it would have received at least a mention on some stele somewhere.

When you consider all of these things, the premise "Atlantis was a real place" weakens to the point where even thinking that it MIGHT have existed is illogical, possibly even irrational. Not that it should stop people from assessing evidence that comes up, but one should definitely NOT be saying that "it might have been" is EQUALLY likely as "it never was." We do in fact have a preponderance of evidence that weighs AGAINST Atlantis, and very little to nothing FOR it.

T. Franke link
5/14/2017 04:43:38 pm

@V:

First things first: You talk of a literally true Atlantis, 9000 years ago. I do not. I am absolutely convinced that a literal Atlantis never existed. It is not possible. First, because of the development of human civilization which happened only later. Secondly, because a historical tradition without written words over such a long time is not possigble.

I talk of a distorted historical tradition. Distorted in the same way as Herodotus' information is distorted. See above. The Saitic time in Egypt and its special errors about its own past. Did you read all above postings? No?

Cynical liar: Because Plato deceives his audience, then. And heavily! The audience of his time had no chance to see that it is not true, as it did not with Herodotus. And no: Plato did *not* do this elsewhere. Plato plans a Noble Lie, but he plans it *openly*, he does not apply the Noble Lie to the readers of his dialogues.

Your list of assumptions is not valid, because with *this* method you could declare a lot of texts as untrue. Including Herodotus e.g. And you forgot the possiblity of the usual distortions in historical traditions. See Herodotus.

I assume, your basic problem is that you never studied the mistakes Herodotus made. This study will teach you a lot to see the Atlantis story with other eyes.

Maybe the Egyptians did record the story somewhere other? We only could not identify it, so far. The Sea Peoples are a hot candidate. The name "Atlantis" is not a name. It is a Greek grammatical form. So we do not know the name of Atlantis.

Americanegro
5/14/2017 10:19:59 pm

@T. Frank :

You wrote:
"You talk of a literally true Atlantis, 9000 years ago. I do not. I am absolutely convinced that a literal Atlantis never existed. It is not possible. First, because of the development of human civilization which happened only later."

Wait, what?!!! What happened to "do not believe"???

Dude, the front page of your website says "Approaches at an academic level towards Plato's Atlantis as a real place". And you're another in a long line of guys who doesn't know what "civilization" means.

T. Franke link
5/15/2017 05:36:17 am

@Americanegro:

Atlantis is real, in my humble opinion.
But of course: The literal reading is not the reality.
It is the same with Herodotus: Egypt exists. But Herodotus is wrong in certain aspects. This is not so difficult to understand, or?

And NB: My claim above was only: Atlantis could be real. I did not argue for "Atlantis is real". This is a more far-reaching claim, for which I did not argue, here.

See the differences :-)

Americanegro
5/15/2017 06:33:05 pm

I see you saying that in your opinion Atlantis is real (once someone actually checked your website) whereas before you said it was a _possibility_. I see you talking down and weaseling through the discussion. Someone points out that Julius Caesar was real? BUT WAIT!! HERODOTUS GOT FACTS ABOUT THE EGYPTIANS WRONG!!! LOOK, SOMETHING SHINY!!! When you get caught you always bring up Herodotus.

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 06:59:58 am

@Americanegro:

You feel fooled by me, and I will try now to explain it, again.
I do not want you to feel fooled by me.
I do not want to fool you.

So, again:

Most Atlantis searchers take Plato's account literally.
They search for an Atlantis 9000 years ago, in the Atlantic sea.
My opinion on this is: This cannot be, see above.

Most Atlantis skeptics agree in this literal reading.
They argue: If we take it literally, it cannot exist.
My opinion on this is: True, but the pre-condition of the literal reading is wrong.

My position is differently:

My approach is, that a literal reading simply does not serve well for an appropriate understanding of the text. Why is this so? Here Herodotus helps most. Because Herodotus shows you, how a literal reading leads into mistake. A literal reading of Herodotus would lead to the result that Egypt does not exist. Because there is no Egypt which is 11000 years old, e.g.

The correct reading of Herodotus is a historical-critical reading. Herodotus just made mistakes. And the correct reading is to detect these mistakes. And this is my approach for Plato's Atlantis, too.

Herodotus teaches us a second thing: He lived near to Plato, and he got (distorted) information from Egypt, as allegedly did Plato (resp. Solon). The distortion of information in Herodotus' histories could give us clues about the possible distortions of Plato's Atlantis story.

With this approach, I argue for the possibility of Atlantis as a real place. Looking differently than the literal reading. This claim I can do now. It is a valid possibility. But only a possibilty.

After I will have applied this approach and sorted it all out (I am currently doing this) I will be (most probably) able to claim, that Atlantis is a real place, and to demonstrate which place. But this will happen in the future.

You still feel fooled?

Americanegro
5/16/2017 07:42:52 am

BUT WAIT!! HERODOTUS GOT FACTS ABOUT THE EGYPTIANS WRONG!!! LOOK, SOMETHING SHINY!!!

When you get caught you always bring up Herodotus.

No I don't feel fooled at all, never have.

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 08:50:36 am

@Americanegro:

You seem to be in an I-do-not-want-to-understand modus.

Look, Herodotus got FACTS wrong. Yes. Yes! But how can you see the difference between facts which somebody got wrong, and facts which are wrong because they are invented facts? You cannot, if the author did not seed some hints into the text. But be careful: The wrong fact itself is not such a hint. The wrong fact is only wrong, and you don't know why.

So, the 9000 years are wrong. Either invented, or Plato got it wrong in the same way as Herodotus his 11000 years (both about the same source system: Egypt). But the 9000 years themselves do not indicate which of both it is. Maybe other aspects of Plato's Atlantis account?

My humble opinion is: There are not hints to an invention in the text. There is no irony. Plato simply made a mistake, as did Herodotus. Most probably it is the *same* mistake, because both talk about time frames in relation to Egyptian history.

My view is supported by the fact that most authors in ancient times accepted Plato's story as true. Only 500 years after Plato the first doubter known by name appeared (Numenius). And only the Christians were the first ones who doubted the time frame (because it contradicts the biblical time frame).

Americanegro
5/16/2017 10:19:18 am

You mean the Hebrew scriptural timeframe? If you choose to assert that the Hebrews did not believe the timeframe of their own scriptures, that is of course your right.

HERODOTUS GOT SOMETHING WRONG!!! LOOK, SOMETHING SHINY!!! SOMEONE GOT SOMETHING WRONG SO STUFF THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MADE UP IS JUST SOMEONE GETTING DATES WRONG, BECAUSE EGYPTIANS!!!

Your argument in a nutshell. You're welcome.

Joe Scales
5/16/2017 10:53:42 am

"With this approach, I argue for the possibility of Atlantis as a real place. Looking differently than the literal reading. This claim I can do now. It is a valid possibility. But only a possibilty.

After I will have applied this approach and sorted it all out (I am currently doing this) I will be (most probably) able to claim, that Atlantis is a real place, and to demonstrate which place. But this will happen in the future."

This is like a Fringe treatise here. You take what is "possible" and warp it into what you believe to be probable; and then affirm that confirmation bias is your methodology in setting forth the issue as fact. Again, your form is off, which is often the case with those that venture into fields for which they have no training.

What is "possible" is an ultimately meaningless premise. Unless sophistry is your bag.

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 11:13:56 am

@Americanegro:

No, your assumption that I would think that the Hebrews did not believe in their own time frame (what I do not) show me, that you still have not understood it.

And you still shout at me in capital letters, as if you KNEW that Plato invented the story, and Herodotus only got it wrong. But this, you do NOT know. This is only a possibility.

Let us stop this here, ok, Americanegro?
I tried my very best.
Maybe you read this conversation again after one month.
Maybe you will then see things you do not see now.

@Joe Scales:

To know what is possible and what not is very important. Look at the majority of Atlantis searchers: They search for something which for sure never existed, which is for sure not possible.

And furthermore, the probability of my proposed possibility is not small. It is absolutely legitimate to read a text about information from Egypt like any other text about information from Egypt. If Herodotus made mistakes, why shouldn't we not investigate the possibility that Plato made similar mistakes in the same time about the same topic?

Your error, Joe Scales, is, that you assume that you would have clear hints that Plato's Atlantis is an invention. But you do not have such hints. I do not know any such hints. Plato says, it is true as well as Herodotus does. Plato makes mistakes in the same scale and scope as well as Herodotus does. You cannot just say that your "feeling" says you that Plato invented it all. This is not a valid argument.

Americanegro
5/16/2017 11:33:27 am

"No, your assumption that I would think that the Hebrews did not believe in their own time frame (what I do not) show me, that you still have not understood it."

Yet you said Christians were the first NOT to believe in Atlantis. So the Hebrews DID believe in it, even though it contradicts their scriptural timelines? What a failing argument.

The argument that "you're shouting at me" is the argument of a man who cannot cope.

I'm not going to see anything new because all you do is say "HERODOTUS MADE A MISTAKE! LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!!!"

I read your abortion of a review on Amazon and what I learned is that you REALLY like to type.

You want to present yourself as a researcher who knows more about historical criticism than whomever he's talking to but it's stoneholes all the way down.

Showed your posts to my girlfriend Saphronia and our daughter Benadryl and they like to fell out laughing.

Joe Scales
5/16/2017 11:37:17 am

My error is in hoping you'd recognize your logical shortfalls as illustrated above. If your form is off, your substance is rendered meaningless. So I haven't even gotten to that latter part yet despite your belief otherwise; nor do I wish to. If pressed further, I'd only be cage-rattling.

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 11:53:51 am

@Americanegro:

Your argument that I have to assume that the Hebrews accepted Plato's timeline because only the Christians were the first ones to complain about the timeline, is flawed. The flaw is, that we do not have any ancient text written by a Hebrew before the Christians about Plato's Atlantis. So either the Hebrews did not take notice of it, or they did and their comment is lost. The first who complained about the timeline, as far as we know, were the Christians. But who clearly did take notice and did not complain about the timeline are the Greeks. And this is the crucial part of the argument. There is nothing to be laughed at.

@Joe Scales:

There would be a difference between Herodotus and Plato in presenting an "Egyptian story", if you could show that the one acted as historian, the other as inventor. But the latter, you cannot. There are no signs of fiction in the alleged historical tradition of Plato's Atlantis. There are surely aspects which cannot be true, but they stay within the range of the mistakes made by Herodotus. So we have no means to decide: Is it now a mistake or is it an invention?

There is no mistake in this argument.

The real Atlantis was then most probably one of the island within the Mediterranean sea, at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Nothing strange about it. Nothing unreal.

I am still waiting that you show me why Plato's alleged historical tradition from Egypt must be or at least most probably is an invention. This is the key of it all. Show me!

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 01:45:07 pm

PS to Americanegro:

There was indeed a Hebrew before the Christians, who mentioned Plato's Atlantis! It was Philo of Alexandria. Even Vidal-Naquet mentions him, if this makes it more acceptable to you.

And Philo mentioned Atlantis ... affirmatively. To be precise, Philo does not spend any word on the thought that Atlantis could not be true, and uses it as an example to underpin one of his arguments. He surely thought it to be simply true.

But Philo was not an "orthodox" Jew, he rejected a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible. So everything fits together. I wanted just mention Philo, so that you do not complain about oversimplifying my arguments (in such a discussion forum there are limits of complexity in showing arguments.)

Joe Scales
5/16/2017 02:38:14 pm

"There would be a difference between Herodotus and Plato in presenting an "Egyptian story", if you could show that the one acted as historian, the other as inventor. But the latter, you cannot."

Stop right there. There goes your form again. I'll give you a hint. It's a dilemma. That's false....

T. Franke link
5/16/2017 03:45:49 pm

@Joe Scales:

So, a false dilemma. I do not see it. Surely, you can explain this explicitly. Thank you.

Still waiting that you give any arguments why you think that the alleged historical tradition about Atlantis is precisely an invention, and not a real historical tradition containing the usual mistakes (where Herodotus is a good measure for measuring what a "usual" mistake is).

Joe Scales
5/17/2017 10:42:47 am

Explaining anything to you has been shown to be a complete waste of time and bandwidth; by me and others. Go back to school and actually study these things which intrigue you, and learn the proper methodology for investigating them. Oh, and take a logic class as well. Actually, do that first.

T. Franke link
5/17/2017 12:36:09 pm

@Joe Scales:

Hmmmm, all the Greeks (including most prominently Herodotus) thought that Egypt is 11000 years old, or even older. Which is a mistake of course. But not an invention. But when Plato writes about an age of 9000 years (also this a story from Egypt as all the others) then everybody surprisingly says that this is "clearly" an invention, and not a mistake. - Bad logic I would say.

Just for the record: You were unable, until now, to explain what according to your opinion hints to your assumption that Plato's Atlantis is an invention. Most probably you do not have any hints to present?

You should learn to openly admit when you lost a case. You do not have to change your mind about Atlantis. You just could say: I have no answer now, let me search for an answer. I would accept this. But calling me an idiot, what you practically did, is not an appropriate solution for your problem, Joe Scales.

Yes, it is YOUR problem.

Joe Scales
5/17/2017 01:25:37 pm

"You should learn to openly admit when you lost a case."

Oh, so Atlantis has been discovered then. Where can I book my tour?

Seriously T. Other than general asides made in regard to how I view Plato, I've done nothing but pick on your lack of logical acuity. I have not even approached the substance of whatever you're trying to express and have already shown my disdain for doing so. Yet, you have me representing otherwise.

When there comes a point in time when my only rational response to those who wish to argue issues online is to inform them that they're are in fact idiots... well, that's when I choose to ignore them from that point on. Seeing you've already perceived my intent in this regard, I will leave you to your own devices. Call it a win if you'd like. For me it was never a competition.

T. Franke link
5/17/2017 02:14:40 pm

@Joe Scales:

You are the master of anti-logic: I try to show that there is a possibility (!) that Atlantis existed, only a possibility, and you answer ridiculing me:

"Oh, so Atlantis has been discovered then. Where can I book my tour?"

You have understood nothing at all. Your understanding of logic is below any educational level.

Yes, you are right: It is a clear win for me. And it never was a competition. Because you started the race with a dogmatic view: That it is absolutely and inevitably clear that Atlantis is and must be an invention. Forget it. There is no argument on which you can base such a dogmatic view.

The Atlantis story is explicitly presented as a true story, as Plato always does say of what kind his stories are (mythos, logos, analogy, etc.). And this story fits well to all other (distorted) notions the Greeks had of Egypt and geography and history. This story is either a very well made deception, or it is meant to be true (always with the idea that it is a distorted story, from a modern point of view). And if it is a well-made deception, then exactly this perfectness of deception establishes the impossibility to say which it is. There is the possiblity of deception as well as the possibility of a distorted historical tradition of a real place.

You will have to live with it,
even if it does not fit well
into your anti-logic universe.

Find more about it:
http://www.Atlantis-Scout.de/

Americanegro
5/17/2017 06:59:29 pm

@T. Franke

Aside from the fact which you continually confirm that you are a down-talker who likes to talk down, the consensus here is that you ARE an idiot.

T. Franke link
5/18/2017 05:12:38 am

@Joe Scales
@Americanegro
@all others reading

I would like to end this saying, that I do not prefer to call anybody an idiot here. Quite the contrary: I have a certain understanding that the presented view encounters some resistence.

It is not the usual view. It is not aired on TV. Neither by Atlantis searchers, nor by Atlantis skeptics It is not written in the prominent text books. Only few academics did more or less cautious steps in that direction, mostly in academic papers rarely published in books, and if so, then not for the broader audience. Find such things here:
http://www.atlantis-scout.de/

I think there is a simple reason: If you claim that Atlantis is real, everybody thinks at first glance that you talk of Atlantis in the literal meaning (happened here, too, although I clearly said that ...). And if you start to explain why the real Atlantis is not the literal Atlantis, 50% or more of the audience is not educated enough to follow such kind of thoughts. Truth is sometimes so complicated that the public cannot grasp it. And thus, also academia is reluctant to grasp the thought. You endanger yourself of becoming isolated.

Well, we can work on this. We have to. Because exactly this historical-critical understanding of texts is at the heart of our modern, enlightened Western civilization.

So, welcome, Joe Scales and Americanegro, ...! You are no idiots. You just get it wrong, for the time being. Things happen. I understand that. Reason needs time to get used to thoughts, even if they are purely logical.

Only Me
5/18/2017 10:57:01 am

"And if you start to explain why the real Atlantis is not the literal Atlantis, 50% or more of the audience is not educated enough to follow such kind of thoughts. Truth is sometimes so complicated that the public cannot grasp it."

An unprovable assumption, and one that reeks of arrogance. I reject your "truth" and the arguments you've put forward. I do so, not from ignorance, but based on the flawed premise you've presented.

When you start equating criticism of your hypothesis with lack of education, you automatically lose. It is a tacit admission that you'd rather have your "truth" accepted without resistance, instead of putting forth the effort to make a compelling argument. That's intellectual laziness and dishonesty at its finest.

Americanegro
5/18/2017 11:00:07 am

Saphronia and Benadryl still be laffing they asses off. You are still an idiot who likes to talk down to people. HERODOTUS!!!

T. Franke link
5/18/2017 02:29:59 pm

@Only Me:

You are right. An unprovable assumption. This is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about. Thank you, that you noticed this.

This alleged Atlantis tradition from Egypt looks very much like some mistaken story from Egypt. So it could be meant to be true. Or it could be a deception. How to see the difference? Nobody has presented any proof for or against this or that possibilty. It is an open question. Unprovable, as it seems, here and now. Yes! You are right, Only Me.

I do not intend to prove that Atlantis existed, by this argument. I said this. I want to prove, that there is a possibility that it is meant to be a true story (distorted, then, of course). And I am not alone with this argument. And I still do not get what is wrong with this argument (which is not "my" argument, to be precise, I did not invent it).

Did Jesus not live, if he did not walk on the water? Some here behave as if the water-walking story was a proof that Jesus never lived. But it's a logical fallacy. A mistaken assumption about history and historical traditions.

Some here behave, as if there was clear proof that the Atlantis story was meant to be not true. Strange. Why then do so many scholars talk of a deception? How can you deceive anybody, if you easily can see that it is not true? Are all the authors who wrote about a deception and the Noble Lie wrong? These are many ...

I hope you are aware that it is not possible to claim that it is a Noble Lie and to claim that it is "obviously" an invention. You have to decide what you favour of these two assumptions. I say this with all politeness: You will have to make this decision. There is no escape for you.

Amercanegro wrote above: "HERODOTUS GOT SOMETHING WRONG!!! LOOK, SOMETHING SHINY!!! SOMEONE GOT SOMETHING WRONG SO STUFF THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MADE UP IS JUST SOMEONE GETTING DATES WRONG, BECAUSE EGYPTIANS!!!"

Let me point to this part: "SO STUFF THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MADE UP" -- Could anybody be so polite to explain me, by what means you can see that it is even "obvious" that the Atlantis tradition is made up? Nothing is obvious here. But I ask for such arguments for days now, and nobody is able to put forward something.

@Americanegro:

Herodotus :-) *smile* Yes!

Herodotus is a major source -- if not "the" major source -- about the Late Egyptian period, especially the Saitic period. Every scholar in the field knows this. There is a vast literature about the mistakes Herodotus made. And this literature mostly blames the wrong notion of the Saitic Egyptians for these mistakes. It is absolutely logical to ask the question if not other stories from Egypt became distorted by the same wrong notions of the Saitic Egyptians. There is nothing to laugh about.

And as I said above: The mistake to assume a wrong age of Egypt is a common mistake among the Greeks. Cf. e.g. Diodorus Siculus, Book I. You will find nothing else in all the Greek literature. You will have to get used to the thought that Plato's Atlantis story blends in very well.

I say this with all politeness: You will have to get used to this thought. There is no escape for you.

Finally, let me add: Who is the arrogant, dogmatic person here? He, who puts forward argument after argumnet, or he, who shouts in capital letters that something is "obvious" but never puts forward any argument why it is "obvious"? You should really be more polite.

Only Me
5/18/2017 04:05:39 pm

"I want to prove, that there is a possibility that it is meant to be a true story (distorted, then, of course)."
" And I still do not get what is wrong with this argument..."

In the preceding paragraph, you admit the following:

"Nobody has presented any proof for or against this or that possibilty. It is an open question. Unprovable, as it seems, here and now."

THAT is why your argument fails. You say no one has presented proof the story is a work of fiction *while failing to offer proof of your own that it isn't*. You say both ideas are unprovable, so why are you wasting your time arguing about it? You have undermined your own argument!

"I hope you are aware that it is not possible to claim that it is a Noble Lie and to claim that it is 'obviously' an invention."

Actually, it is. The story fits perfectly with the accepted definition of what the noble lie is, as introduced by Plato himself.

Here's the most egregious flaw of your argument thus far: Herodotus and Plato were wrong about the true age of Egypt, therefore, it's possible Atlantis is a true story. This is no different than Graham Hancock arguing for the existence of Atlantis because a comet impact took place in the Younger Dryas. In either case, it doesn't follow logically that Atlantis was real because of a natural disaster or historical mistake *because* the alleged existence of Atlantis is independent of both events.

T. Franke link
5/18/2017 05:39:42 pm

@Only Me:

Thank you, Only Me, that you started to put forward arguments.

a) Unprovable:

My argument as you present it correctly, is not failing, because the result is, that it is an open question, then. And to realize, that the Atlantis question is an open question is a small but significant progress. To realize that we do not know more, is not an undermining of the argument. Because the argument did not claim to know whether Atlantis existed.

b) Wasting time:

Here, you have misunderstood me. You are right: If neither possibility is not provable for all times, then we are wasting our time. Yet you cited me well: "Unprovable, as it seems, here and now." Meaning: As for now we have no proof, but maybe we will have one, one day. Above in the discussion I said that I am working on it. In some years we will see whether it was a waste of time. It is possible, that it is wasted time, yes. And it is even possible that some day somebody puts forward a proof that it is an invented story! But to say, that it is an open question does not undermine my argument.

c) Noble Lie:

No, it does not perfectly fit with Plato's concept of a Noble Lie. Three reasons for this.

The Noble Lie is planned in detail. It talks of autochthonous warriors born from earth in weapons, in order to make the warrior citizens bound to the ground of their land, defending it at all means. But this concept is not part of Plato's Atlantis story. The Atlantis story does contain only the "usual" founding myths, and the primeval Athens is only a previous repetition of the present Athens, within a cyclical view of history.

Furthermore, even if it would be a Noble Lie, the mere fact that it *looks* like a Noble Lie does not yet make it a Noble Lie. I really have not found in any academic paper about Plato's Atlantis some reasonable thoughts on this problem: How to detect that at deception is exactly this: a deception. Because if it is perfect, then you have problems recognizing this. And this is the case, here.

Last but not least, a Noble Lie would not tell that some parts are "added" as Plato himself reveals about the part concering primeval Athens: Timaeus 26cd: "The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors" - So, here something is made up. If it would be planned as a Noble Lie, Plato would not have written this, you can be sure. Here, we have to make a difference between the alleged historical tradition from Egypt and what Plato made of it.

d) Herodotus' mistake and Hancock's argument:

Hancock's argument cannot be compared to my argument, really not. As you say, Hancock claims something about a disaster, and then concludes: Atlantis existed. I see major differences:

Hancock's argument claims that Atlantis existed, my argument does not. It is as simple as that.

Hancock's argument connects two events without any reason. My argument connects Plato's Atlantis with Herodotus because they allegedly have a common source: Egypt.

I try to explain this further: My argument is not an argument for the existence of Plato's Atlantis, but rather against the claim of non-existence. The argument does not show that Atlantis existed, but only, that there is a possibility that it existed.

My argument is against the argument, that, because the 9000 years show that the story cannot be true, so the story must be invented. My argument is intended to debunk the latter part of this conclusion: It is not true, yes, but it is not necessarily invented only because it is not true. It could well be distorted, as any other story from Egypt is distorted in a similar way. Maybe I even could say: The similarity of the possible distortion with the distortions of other stories is so striking that it even becomes likely to be a distorted story, rather than an invented story.

Americanegro
5/18/2017 06:27:08 pm

Jesus fucking Christ, you love to type!

There's no other way to say this: What do the doctors say your mental disorder is?

Only Me
5/18/2017 06:35:28 pm

Thorwald, you're being evasive.

"Because the argument did not claim to know whether Atlantis existed."

That last statement is not what I asserted. I pointed out you are arguing FOR the existence, not that you claim to know that it did.

"Atlantis is real, in my humble opinion."

Then it can't be an open-ended question for you, can it? Of course not, because you admit you want to prove the story is a distorted memory of history. You can't argue something might be true *and* acknowledge doubts about the possibility, but demand others to accept that very possibility while leaving room for doubt. You are attempting to create a scenario where you can't be wrong, regardless of the outcome.

As to the noble lie, I'm using the broad definition: a myth or untruth knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. Atlantis fits this broad definition.

Let me explain again how your argument is no different from Hancock's. In both arguments, Atlantis existed due to an independent event being used to support the arguments. For Hancock, it's a comet. For you, it's because Herodotus was wrong about Egypt's age. Neither a cosmic event nor a historical error, by themselves, prove the existence of Atlantis. It is equally likely Atlantis didn't exist at all; not at the time of the comet impact nor when Herodotus made his mistake. You cannot connect unrelated events and say, "There you go. Proof of Atlantis."

"I try to explain this further: My argument is not an argument for the existence of Plato's Atlantis, but rather against the claim of non-existence."

Which is *exactly* the same thing as arguing FOR the existence of Atlantis!

"My argument is against the argument, that, because the 9000 years show that the story cannot be true, so the story must be invented."

So you use the same evidence to argue the opposite? If the evidence is insufficient for the former, how does it become sufficient for the latter?

"My argument is intended to debunk the latter part of this conclusion: It is not true, yes, but it is not necessarily invented only because it is not true."

If the story isn't true, then how did you reach the opinion Atlantis is real? You're saying the story is NOT TRUE and UNPROVABLE...but you believe Atlantis is real, anyway. Hoo boy.





DD'eDeN
5/18/2017 06:51:35 pm

Were the priests at Sais Temple clearly described as Egyptian (indigenous) cultured priests, as opposed to Mediterranean priests of a foreign sect?

T. Franke link
5/19/2017 07:46:54 am

@Only Me:

I see a very big misunderstanding on your side. Let me explain it. You confuse two arguments, of which I put forward only one, not both:

Argument 1: Atlantis is not necessarily an invention. There is a possibility for the existence of Atlantis in the sense of a distorted historical tradition. Because ... Saitic Egypt .... see above. Only the possibility.

Argument 2: Atlantis is indeed real, and necessarily not an invention.

I do not argue for argument No. 2, here and now. Here and now, I only argue for argument No. 1. For argument No. 2 I cannot (!) argue here and now, since I am still working on it. And maybe I will fail to produce evidence for argument No. 2. It is possible that I will fail.

When I will be able to put forward argument No. 2 (if ever, in the future, not now), then of course I will not argue any more for the possibility for an invention. Because then, I will have proof against it. Who knows if this ever will happen. For the moment this is only my humble opinion for which I do not put forward an elaborated argument, especially not here.

The other future possibility is that somebody will find a proof that it is an invention. Who knows. Can happen.

You simply confused these two arguments, or points of view, and yes: Then you encounter self-contradictions. I understand well where you see the self-contradiction but this is not the way I argue.

Other topics:

Noble Lie: Yes, you are right that Atlantis could be such a Noble Lie in the broad sense as you define it here. But it is not necessarily such a Noble Lie in the broad sense. It is only a possibility.

Hancock: Here, you say yourself what I am saying: "It is equally likely Atlantis didn't exist at all". Yes! This is it! In *your* words!

And no: Arguing against an argument against the existence is not yet an argument proving the existence. It is "only" an argument opening a question which seemed to be closed. And this is all what I want to do here: On a blog where a lot of absolutely convinced Atlantis skeptics read and write, putting forward the argument: Don't be so sure. This is an open question.

Story not true: I did not say that the alleged (distorted) historical tradition is not true. I said, that Plato added something to a true (distorted) tradition. And what he added concerns primeval Athens.You really should read more carefully. - And I repeat from above: Since Plato openly admits that something (not all) has been added to his alleged Super-Athens, how can it be a Noble Lie then? It cannot.

T. Franke link
5/19/2017 07:52:52 am

@DD'Eden:

Yes, the Saitic priests where "real" and "usual" Egyptian priests in an Egytpian temple with a very old and known tradition. No foreign sect. This is true even if Solon never visited this temple and all about Atlantis is a hoax. The excavations of this temple are at the town of Sa el-Hagar, today. Herodotus describes the temple in some details.

Only Me
5/19/2017 01:32:24 pm

No, Thorwald, I'm not confused. I'm also tiring of you misrepresenting what I've said.

You accept Atlantis may not have existed at all.
You propose the story is a distorted historical memory.

This doesn't make sense, as it requires Atlantis to exist to give rise to the memory. If you can accept it may not have existed, you can't outright refuse the conclusion it is a work of fiction. There are only two choices: Atlantis existed or it didn't. The only way to prove it did is not through the parsing of words, but the discovery of physical evidence. Your whole argument is predicated on "What if?" That isn't good enough. Until physical evidence of an ancient civilization that more closely matches the story than any previous candidate emerges, I will remain convinced Atlantis is a myth.

"And no: Arguing against an argument against the existence is not yet an argument proving the existence."

That is not what I said. I said arguing against something not existing is the same as arguing FOR its existence.

"Story not true: I did not say that the alleged (distorted) historical tradition is not true."

Again, this is not what I said. I'm saying if the story, the basis of your alleged distorted historical tradition is NOT TRUE, it can't be what you claim it is. You declared the story, in its entirety, as not true. Maybe you should have been more specific about which elements you think ARE true, which would form the basis of your hypothesis. Doing so, however, can be correctly called out as cherry-picking only those elements that support your hypothesis. Herein lies the problem you openly acknowledged: you haven't provided a compelling argument that would allow the rest of us to consider your hypothesis seriously. Which elements are "true" and why?

"Hancock: Here, you say yourself what I am saying: 'It is equally likely Atlantis didn't exist at all'. Yes! This is it! In *your* words!"

At least you quoted me correctly. You still don't understand. If it is equally likely Atlantis DID NOT exist, at all, then you *cannot* dismiss the idea the story is a work of fiction. That's what you've been doing since the beginning. If Atlantis didn't exist, there is no basis for a distorted historical tradition and by default, the story is fiction. Herodotus' mistake is irrelevant, as by itself, it can neither prove nor disprove that Atlantis did exist. Your mistake is arguing that it does.

T. Franke link
5/19/2017 05:33:54 pm

@Only Me:

I am sorry, but now you present such an absurdly confused version of what I said that I feel not obliged any more to explain this to you once more. I cannot do more than explaining it: My last posting provides all answers to your last posting.

I can only guess why you couldn't understand it:

Maybe you are a victim of the pseudo-scientific either-it's-fact-or-it's-nothing thinking which flourishes widely in such forums like this? Maybe the concept of proving a possibility (and not a "fact") sounds like a self-contradiction to you? Maybe the concept of approaching a problem step-by-step, proving more and more, is alien to you, because the usual Atlantis searcher "jumps" to a "solution", whereas academic approaches go forward in cautious steps? Maybe your idea of Plato's Atlantis as an invention is so deeply burnt-in to your brain that you really have difficulties if somebody starts to analyze the subtleties of the question? I really did not say: "You declared the story, in its entirety, as not true." Really not. I explained this! I am shocked: You are heavily confused.

And you are the only person who can unravel your confusions.

Only Me
5/19/2017 08:48:03 pm

Well, now. It seems someone can't handle valid criticism.

"Maybe you are a victim of the pseudo-scientific either-it's-fact-or-it's-nothing thinking which flourishes widely in such forums like this?"
"I am shocked: You are heavily confused."

No, to both statements. I entertained your hypothesis, but when offering valid criticism, you refused to extend the same courtesy. You have shown me the same character flaw that is present in all of the fringe authors/historians discussed on this blog and I am disappointed.

Oh, well. I'm done with this, anyway. I bear no ill will and wish you success with your efforts.

T. Franke link
5/20/2017 08:24:12 am

@Only Me:

It is an unfortunate experience that discussion not always helps to overcome different views. We could not agree on what I did say and what I did not say, here, in a written text, before our eyes. Strange.

At least, we agree on your last words:
"I bear no ill will and wish you success with your efforts."

Kal
5/11/2017 07:32:25 pm

The Necronomicon is real. I saw it in several horror films. Ha. Real, I tells ya.

Reply
Brady Yoon
5/12/2017 12:30:33 am

There's one major problem with the theory that a comet destroyed Atlantis. The comet impact that Hancock is talking about occurred about 12,900 years ago at the beginning of the Younger Dryas period. But Atlantis was destroyed at the end of that period circa 9600 BC...there's actually no evidence for a comet impact at 9600 BC. And the sudden drop in temperature that took place at the onset of the Younger Dryas period is consistent with a comet impact, but the temperature rise that occurred at the end of the YD is not, as comet impacts almost always result in a temperature decrease.

Reply
Americanegro
5/12/2017 10:27:24 am

"But Atlantis was destroyed at the end of that period circa 9600 BC"

No, it really wasn't.

Reply
V
5/14/2017 02:24:25 pm

I think he meant to say that "Atlantis was allegedly destroyed...." which would be consistent with "Plato wrote this story that says--"

IE, when Brady Yoon posted, it was with the unwritten but clear assumption that "IF Atlantis existed, it was destroyed in 9600 BC." Which, he is right, would be more than a millennium off from the Younger Dryas proposed impact.

Americanegro
5/14/2017 04:36:26 pm

I don't think he meant that. Let me refer you to:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/is-the-caribbean-hell-on-earth-one-writer-says-its-the-real-underworld-of-myth

El Cid
5/12/2017 10:56:46 am

It might very well be true that one or more of the North American glacial lake outburst floods, especially the 8200 BP event, may have submerged early settlements that could have been predecessors of what we now consider the first civilizations.

But this doesn't cause me to conclude that the sites covered were some magic (and usually imagined as white) super civilization, because I am not crazy and I don't insist that things which would be fantastical must be true because I want to believe it.

Interestingly, Gobekli Tepe *precedes* this last glacial lake outburst.

Perhaps one day underwater archaeology in the (now) Persian Gulf may recover evidence of one or more cities which preceded supposed first cities such as Uruk.

Or, maybe not. Or maybe there were 'towns' or whatever and not full cities.

The point is that I don't know what might be there, and it doesn't have to conform with any grand imaginary theory I might come up with.

Reply
Americanegro
5/12/2017 05:13:57 pm

Burden of proof is on you Sir or Madam. "Well, it could be because we don't know" is a very weak argument.

"Is Herodotus now a liar?" No, just misinformed, and not an archaeologist. "Someone a long time ago got something wrong therefore I'm right" is also a very weak argument.

And the Christian timeline came from the Hebrew scriptures. If you want to assert that the pre-Christian Hebrews didn't believe their own version of history, that is of course your right.

"By the way, throughout Antiquity there were many authors who were in favour of the existence of Atlantis, and only few (and late) doubters." So what?

No one's calling "Plato a cynical liar" just a storyteller.

Occam's Razor tells us that a story about a story about someone telling someone a story is very likely just that, a story.

Reply
T. Tank
5/14/2017 11:05:27 am

What a sideshow. The fact that these guys care what "academia" thinks of their hair brained theories is just crazy. Speculation is just that. It is not proof of anything. Next they will suggest the earth is flat. Just because there was a flood or comet strike does not mean it destroyed anything. Jason is right. There would be more material evidence if this were true. But oh wait the Smithsonian are covering it all up along with the "academics." He he. Call in Carlson to comment again.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

    Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.

    powered by TinyLetter

    Blog Roll

    Ancient Aliens Debunked
    Picture
    A Hot Cup of Joe
    ArchyFantasies
    Bad UFOs
    Mammoth Tales
    Matthew R. X. Dentith
    PaleoBabble
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2023 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search