Monday, 9 May 2011

Advanced Civilisation - or just lost knowledge of the Ancients?

Is this a long lost vision of the past - or just us having a better understanding of history?


 


This is the ABORA III during its maiden 550 mile journey from Azores.  These simple crafts are able to navigate the known ancient world from the Northern Hemisphere to the Mediterranean and beyond!

Remember RA II in 1970's?




It travelled 3270 miles in 57 days - that's 60 miles per day!! Not only that it crossed the Atlantic Ocean a fact most academics at the time refused to believe possible.

Therefore, were the history books then re-written after the historic journey some 40 years ago showing the clear possibility that the Egyptians could have reach and influenced the Mayan civilisation ….. Not a chance!!

Consequently, archaeologists almost completely dismiss the concept of migration by boat for our ancestors – instead they insist that they 'walked' through thick forests without roads or paths rather than sail the 2000 miles from the Mediterranean to Britain at the time of Stonehenge.  

The most absurd fact is that archaeologist’s accept that Prehistoric man could built reed roofs for their houses (mud huts) but were not have the inventive to turn these roofs upside down to build a boat - for if you build a waterproof roof, you can also build a waterproof boat!

Topological evidence shows that our earliest 'towns' which eventually became ports were obviously by the water’s edge.  But my book also clearly shows that ancient 'Long Barrows' were used to mark their course when navigating inland waterways - this is simple common sense if you don’t wish to get lost.

Moreover, this is a cheap simple method of transport(at a time of raised water levels in Northern Europe) but yet some call this technology either  'myth' or 'alien'.  In all my years of watching prehistoric documentaries and archaeological TV series - it has never ever been suggested that a boats may have been, used let alone travelled great distances to trade.

Unfortunately, all this shows is how blind and institutionalised our historians and archaeologists are to any change that could possibly contradict their old dusty theories – or is it job protection?

RJL
(by Robert John Langdon)

28 comments:

  1. But I was of the opinion that the Egyptians invented the reed boat and that would be in their first dynastic period in about 2500BC.

    Are you not looking too far in the past for such craft?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Stuart

    You are correct that the Egyptians used reed boats from about 4000BC the oldest physical evidence was found in Kuwait which is dated 5000BC.

    More interestingly the oldest known drawing of a reed boat was found in caves in Scandinavia of all places dated as 10,000BC.

    The interest of the cave painting is that most archaeologists believe that reed boats originated in the Mediterranean which clearly is wrong!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,

    The Scandinavian cave drawings are intriguing. Is this a fact or an interpretation? Can you post some references or links to this?

    Also, what design of a reed boat could be capable of carrying the biggest sarsens of Stonehenge? Of course, non of this answers the question why?

    Kostas
    P.S. How can I attach a photo to my posts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kostas

    I'm still studying the data and will produce a blog next week to support the boat hypothesis.

    In the meantime you can see wiki for details:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_boat

    But what I will tell you here is that we have discovered paintings in Norway of cave paintings of boats carrying large stones!!

    So that gives me written evidence through plato and pictures on rock walls - as they say in Britain "hook line and sinker" - quite apt really!.

    As for boats sizes, Prof. Richard Atkinson (Stonehenge, Penguin 1956) calculates that the 7 tonne Alter Stone would float on a boat of 700 cubic feet, with a crew of 12.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert,

    Sure, reed boats were used by ancient people, possibly even Brits. But it's a long way from 'reed' to 'stone'!

    You have not yet respondeded to my earlier comment:

    "Why didn't Mesolithic Brits just place markers (even BIG markers) on the existing landscape in an inundated Salisbury Plain as navigational signposts, rather then construct long barrows for that purpose, as you claim?"

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kostas

    Headway at last!

    If you agree that reed boats exist you must agree that stones would have been transported by boat as this was the preferred method of transporting stone in ancient Egypt and here in medieval Britain when the cathedrals were constructed - as they recognized this method is far easier than 'dragging!!'

    I'll try to condense three chapters of my book to just a few lines....

    The monuments were used both as a marker for religious purposes - the shape (a boat) was for the final voyage (as they spent all their lives on a boats) to the afterlife - hence the chambers and bones. And as an appropriate permanent marker as they 'point the way' from a distance as they were white and could be seen 24 hours a day even during moonlight nights.

    Clearly an advanced civilisation who understood how to combine two functions into one marine building that could stand the test of time. A more simple marker would be too small to be seen at distance and then some form of grave burial would have to be constructed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robert,

    Sure 'dragging stones' is a drag! Does it therefore follow that 'sailing stones' is how stones got to Stonehenge?

    Your ability to make up stories is no testament of their truth! Rather your false premises make these necessary each time a new non-sense with your theory is brought up. A little like being caught in a lie and having to make up stories to hide behind.

    But I do agree with you on one point. The stones of Stonehenge were not brought to Stonehenge by men dragging these on land.

    Headway? Sure! But lots here that we disagree over!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kostas

    Do I take it you deny that ancient societies brought building stones to monuments like the pyramids and our great cathedrals by boat?

    I can post pictures and texts in the blog if you wish - but a simple Google will find you enough evidence to 'sink a ship'!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert,

    I can neither deny nor confirm what is not known to me. 'Possibilities' are not facts! If you do not have any trouble with that distinction, I do!

    The only evidence that can 'sink a ship' is the attempt in 2000 to carry just one bluestone from west Wales to Stonehenge by sea -- only to sink to the bottom!

    Have 'ancient societies' also built your 'great cathedrals'? I didn't know that! It is embarrassing, Robert, to have to call you on such charlatan tactics in your arguments!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kostas

    Yes I've studied philosophy as well and 'perceived' knowledge is questionable by experience - but then again according to metaphysics so is your existence! (am I therefore wasting my time replying?)

    If we are to have any kind of 'sensible' debate we must accept evidence of third parties but be able to question their conclusions!

    If that is accepted then look at:
    http://www.bdsdf.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=32478

    This shows ancient war boats (Greek and Egyptian)that can take up to 100 tonnes of loading (so you 10 tonnes stone is a piece of cake!) in comparison to your example of some academic idiots trying to float a boat with a stone on it - if that's all you have its not much of an argument!

    I mentioned the pyramids to show ancient boats in their hieroglyphics carrying stones and Cathedrals to show their are also 'written' records of this 'primitive' and yes medieval Britain's were in my view primitive as a majority they lived in mud huts with little to no technology as our Iron Age ancestors until the 12th century - Interrupted only by an advanced civilisation known as the Romans that brought central heating to houses which was not found again in my country for another 1500 years - showing the lack of linear artefact progression in our history (or do you also deny the Romans existed?) for their wooden boats were even bigger and travelled farther.

    Am I allowed to call the romans 'ancients' as it was 2000 years ago? If so could they get your bluestone from Wales to Stonehenge by wooden boat - if so what wonderful technology did they posses that Mesolithic man could not possess??

    Your 'modus operandi' seems to ask a lot of questions but not submit many answers - do you have any?


    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert,

    You may question my existence, but you can't deny my arguments! Is it a waste of your time to respond to these? It would be if you don't respond to these well and with sound logic.

    Once we dispense with your spurious arguments, we could even progress to more substantive discussions. You say you studied philosophy. Show it by not being sophistic!

    Is it possible for some highly advanced but lost civilization some 10,000 years ago to have build Stonehenge? Yes! Is it possible that aliens may have visited Earth some 10,000 years ago and build Stonehenge? Yes! Is the 'possible' a fact? NO! Let's deal with facts! Anything else is just fantasy!

    We can begin by listing all the reasons you think show that men built these earthworks and megalithic monuments.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kostas

    We seem to be going around in circles again! I think my fellow Ph.D. student colleagues would find your interpretation of logic 'interesting' if not accurate.

    At least we are now down to three possibilities rather than you usual 'prove it' rhetoric.

    I have given you full and complete information on my hypothesis that 'Long Barrows' are navigation tools MADE BY MAN on previous replies to the same question you've asked again including archaeological and geological supporting evidence - But yet you have given us nothing in the form of proof or evidence to your other possibilities of 'Alien' or 'Natural' construction.

    Perhaps my new post will provoke a more productive response.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert,

    I have given you my explanations many times before. But in case you have selectively forgot them you can re-read my article, “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”. Briefly, some highlights of my theory:

    Your waterways, I argue, solidly froze during the 1000 years of the 'big freeze' that followed the 'great melt' of the glaciers some 10,000 years ago. During the time of the making of Stonehenge, and other megalithic monuments and earthworks, the land was covered by 'local ice' of these frozen bodies of water.

    When this 'local ice cover' started melting, it created in essence an 'ice mold' that explains the geomophology of the landscape in Salisbury Plain: ditches and embankments, concentric stone circles, holes in a circle, round and long barrows, alluvial layers and avenues, round ditches marked in sections, etc.

    The huge stones where brought to Stonehenge by Nature on a solidly frozen ice surface. These could easily be pushed by men over the circular ice edge. As the ice hole grew larger radially, these circles of course will be concentric.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kostas

    Thank you for that explanation.

    Just a few of questions:

    As you stated when the ice 're-melted' it created an ice mould - why did it not create this 'ice mould' directly after the ice age or did it?

    And as they have been 5 'mini ice ages' since the 'great melt' 10,000 years ago have there been 5 'ice moulds' in the same spot?

    To 'skate' a 10 tonne stone needs a lot if ice - what depth of ice is needed to support that weight and what temperature does the land need to be to produce such a depth of ice.

    Where and in what were these people living in to survive this temperature but be available to push the stones to their current location.

    Where were the locality of these stones - where they under this icy pond and had to be dug out?

    Are all moated stone circles created the same way or is it just Stonehenge?

    How does water create a flat surface at the bottom of a stone or post hole and why or the post holes irregular rather than symmetrical?

    Some barrows in Scotland are over 1000m above sea level - was the entire British Isles flooded - if so to what height?


    Nine European countries have Long Barrows - where they all under the same ice pond?

    Round Barrows are found in Southern Europe not believed to have been affected by the ice sheet how were they made?

    Is their ANY evidence such as the Greenland Ice Cores or other moulds that support your theory?

    Finished by morning tea now - need to get back to serious research - look forward to some answers.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert,

    Your questions reflect a 'spiteful misunderstanding' of my theory! Happy to help you through these 'metal blocks'.

    Of course, my article “The un-Henging of Stonehenge” (google it and you'll find it) explains my 'local ice cover' theory in much greater detail! Give it another read to help you understand Stonehenge better!

    You ask:

    1) “As you stated when the ice 're-melted' it created an ice mould - why did it not create this 'ice mould' directly after the ice age or did it?”

    Answer:

    There are basically two types of ice sheets that can cover an area. Glacier and 'local ice sheets'. Glaciers are made of solidly packed snow over long periods of time. They are not as homogeneous or dense, have very irregular surface features and will melt more rapidly and irregularly -- as Brian John can attest to from his glacier research. Local ice sheets formed by solidly frozen bodies of water, like lakes or rivers or seas, will have a smooth flat surface and will have different heat transfer properties from glaciers. Such local ice sheets will be more dense, more solid and more homogeneous. They will transfer heat from a geothermal 'hot spot' (like Bath, not too far from Stonehenge) more slowly, more evenly and radially from an ice 'heat sink' hole. This explains the concentric characteristics of all such megalithic monuments.

    There are also other very important differences between 'glacier ice' and 'local ice' of frozen bodies of water. Glaciers 'advance and retreat' leaving a trail of debris, moraines, and fields of glacier erratics widely spread over an area. That such evidence is not found at Salisbury Plain is used against Brian John's glacier transport theory. 'Local ice', on the other hand, will solidly freeze and thaw in place. There is no movement of the ice and so no trail of debris to be found on the land. Thus, the very absence of moraines and fields of erratic stones at Salisbury Plain not only does not refute my 'local ice cover' theory but actually confirms it!

    When the glaciers rapidly melted during the 'great melt', vast amounts of melt water accumulated in lakes, wide rivers, and other such areas. These are your 'waterways' Robert! We agree on that! But following the 'great melt' there was the 'big freeze' that lasted some 1000 years – according to the geological global temperature charts that Brian had posted in his blog. I recall us discussing these at the time! During the 'big freeze' your 'waterways' would have solidly frozen; creating a 'local ice sheet' that covered Salisbury Plain. Such similar conditions existing in other areas of the UK and in other parts of Northern Europe will also result in similar geomorphology like stone circles, parallel stone alignments, round and long barrows, circular ditches, etc.

    The 'ice mold' that I claim help determine the geomorphology that we now see could only form from a 'local ice sheet' like a solidly frozen lake, for example. And not from a glacier ice sheet. This ice mold would form as a result of 'solid ice' and 'geothermal hot spots' interacting. We know that Wales and the UK were experiencing great volcanic and seismic activity during this geological period. And even today, not far from Stonehenge at Bath, we have the warmest waters in all of Europe. Incidentally, some soil bore holes made near Stonehenge show 'surprising high temperatures'. These 'hot spots' in the bedrock would melt the solid ice sheet to form 'circular sink holes', oblong retaining basins, and even other regular and irregular features as we now see.

    (continued at next post)

    ReplyDelete
  16. (continued from previous post)

    2) “And as they have been 5 'mini ice ages' since the 'great melt' 10,000 years ago have there been 5 'ice moulds' in the same spot?”

    Answer:

    Robert, there are oscillations and fluctuations in global temperatures and weather conditions during any period. Your 'mini ice ages' would be part of that period in geological time that is associated with the 'big freeze' following the 'great melt'.

    3) “To 'skate' a 10 tonne stone needs a lot if ice - what depth of ice is needed to support that weight and what temperature does the land need to be to produce such a depth of ice.”

    Answer:

    Robert, if your 'reed boats' could carry 10 ton stones, my solidly frozen lakes could do so even more easily! How thick was the ice? Thick enough! How low were the temperatures? Freezing!

    4) “Where and in what were these people living in to survive this temperature but be available to push the stones to their current location.”

    Answer:

    If you believe in 'Ice Men' then certainly you can believe in 'Ice Brits'. Where were they living? Anywhere they could survive! And they DID survive! That to me is more a testament of their strength and spirit than all the technological advances you like to ascribe to them. If they are to be admired, they should be admired for their true character. Not for fantastical attributes that make them 'characters' rather than real people that could endure real hardships.

    5) “Where were the locality of these stones - where they under this icy pond and had to be dug out?”

    Answer:

    I have no problems with the provenance of the stones at Stonehenge that geological studies establish. That all these are at higher elevations only agrees with my theory. From such elevations, such stones could have been calved from outcrops by ice and water. And once they were on the ice surface of a frozen lake, they would have naturally been transported to the lowest point where a heat sink hole existed. Or all the way to the sea coast where we find many huge boulders underwater.

    6) “Are all moated stone circles created the same way or is it just Stonehenge?”

    Answer:

    The same theory that can explain Stonehenge in all of its geomorphology can explain other similar stone circles, as well as parallel stone alignments as found in Brittany and elsewhere.

    (continued at next post)

    ReplyDelete
  17. (continued from previous post)

    7) “How does water create a flat surface at the bottom of a stone or post hole and why or the post holes irregular rather than symmetrical?”

    Answer:

    Flat surface at the bottom of a stone? Where have you seen this! All the Atckinson photos I have seen of the 'stone pits and settings' under the Stonehenge Layers show very bowl-like and irregular pits. Of course this goes along with my theory that these huge stones were 'dropped from above' rather than 'raised from the ground'. As these stones were dropped, they would be securely embedded, nailed into the chalk bedrock to stay erect for many millenniums. But if you are referring to the more rectangular shape of these stones, check Brian's blog for an exchange I had that shows such shapes could be naturally produced.

    8) “Some barrows in Scotland are over 1000m above sea level - was the entire British Isles flooded - if so to what height?”

    Answer;

    I can't believe you are asking such questions! Now you are grasping for straws! There are no lakes in Scotland? Lakes don't freeze solid in Scotland? There are no lakes at higher elevations that could freeze solid during the 'big freeze'? Robert, stop being sophistic and concentrate on finding the Truth about Stonehenge!

    9) “Nine European countries have Long Barrows - where they all under the same ice pond?”

    Answer:

    See above response!

    10) “Round Barrows are found in Southern Europe not believed to have been affected by the ice sheet how were they made?”

    Answer:

    The 'thawing' after any Ice Age obviously extended from south to north. And as the ice receded, the land developed. And as the land developed, societies and civilizations grew. The northern most parts of Europe obviously were the last to so develop. Nothing to do with the people, just the weather! Am I surprised that there are 'round barrows' in parts of Southern Europe? Absolutely not. I have seen many of these myself. Where I come from they are called 'Macedonian tombs' because human remains are found in them. Just like human remains are found in some round barrows at Salisbury Plain. Nature can repeat itself when the conditions are similar!

    11) “Is their ANY evidence such as the Greenland Ice Cores or other moulds that support your theory?”

    Answer:

    The Greenland Ice Cores is evidence for the 'great melt' followed by the 'big freeze'. That supports my theory!

    Robert, hope this helps you blog – if not the theory you are pushing!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kostas!

    Oh dear where do we begin without being too cruel?

    For brevity I will just number the questions you replied to!

    1,2 & 11) The Greenland ice cores do NOT support your theory! The maximum cold spell in the cores is 400 years NOT 1000 you have indicated. I did try to get you to change that impossible claim by framing the question around the proven 5 mini age ages - you need to go back and change that aspect of your theory to match the ice cores as further deep sea cores have supported the original prehistoric climate map.

    3 & 4) You need to go back and do the MATHS! you will not be taken seriously if answers to basic questions are "thick enough" or "Freezing" is not scientific and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject matter - You would not take me seriously if asked what size boat do you need for a 7 tonne stone (as you did in the past) without my rely with the exact size of boat and a reference to how you obtained the information.

    5 & 6) Answers contradict each other. In 5 you say these are visible ABOVE the ice pond(although how you move them to the ice sheet is ignored) Then the forming of Stone circles was due to the same ice which are usually placed high on hills - I take it at the same (if not greater) elevation as your stonehenge sarsens - which means they are BELOW the ice pond and need to be dug out - you see you have made a perfect circular argument!

    7) you need to research the difference between a post hole and a stone hole. This is a basic mistake made by even archaeologist, so your in good company - I have given you references of books you need to obtain.

    8&9) There are lakes in Scotland therefore you are suggesting that the 'icy pond' was at barrow height in Scotland, which is at least 1000 ft (even higher in some places)??? - are you suggesting that 'barrows' are natural formations from 'icy Ponds' or from snowy glaciations, you essay is and answer are unclear.

    10) your implying that 'Macedonian' tombs were also natural? I don't know if you ever done the research but the last time an ice cap was over that area was over a million years ago - I think you be better off suggesting that these are copies made by man of the northern barrows!!

    I suggest (as I did to Brian before he removed my comments on his blog) you go back to the drawing board keeping in mind my comments and come back with something that has a degree of scientific evidence within it.

    The biggest and hardest question(which I did not ask)with your hypothesis that will be tested against archaeological evidence for credibility - is the construction date of Stonehenge, which is currently believed to be 3000BC some 7000 years after the ice age had melted - good luck on that one!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert,

    Truth is never 'cruel' to a 'Truth seeker'. But the 'distortion of Truth' is not only cruel but a crime against humanity!

    Typically, as with all your past replies, you continue to be sophistic and to pick on some not too consequential, small and insignificant points (which do not contradict the main ideas of my theory) to pull the wool over the reader's eyes. I wont have anything to do with that disingenuous tactic. So I will stop responding to you!

    But I will continue to point vast gaps in your logic and reasoning about Stonehenge – like your Egyptian boat hieroglyph carrying a huge 'stone'. How absurd! Check my comment under that blog entry!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is the big white box-like object in the middle of the ABORA III photo in your post a big stone too?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh dear yet another sceptic....

    For the benefit of the non-believers (both of you) scientists put it to the test in 2002.

    Follow the link to find that yes you can carry stones up to 130 tonnes by reed boat... you need no longer have to believe me just check-out:

    http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/tiwanaku/project/experiment.html

    It's all common sense and that what my book and this site is all about.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert,

    I was most interested in seeing how a 9 ton stone (what about a 40 ton Stonehenge sarsen?) using a reed boat can be carried. As the plot thickened with anticipation, the links to the 'captain's logs' describing the events blinked with 'no such pages found'! Thanks for the blink! But really! What about some real video of that? Care to perform that experiment?

    What we got instead were some mickey mouse cartoons showing the loading of a 9 ton stone onto a reed boat! I am not saying this is or is not possible. But I am saying that the evidence you provided is not confirming of that. Just as relevant is the fact that this supposed method of stone transport in Peru occurred about 900 AD. A far cry from 8000 BC when your Mesolithic ancestors presumably did the same for Stonehenge – but could not write and left no names or history behind.

    If I were to somehow magically transport you to year 8000BC, would that make you a Mesolithic man? If I were to consider a technology today using levels, ropes and pulleys performed by men at 8000BC, would that technology be 8000BC technology? If I was to consider the Pythagorean Theorem at time 8000BC, does that make the Pythagorean Theorem 8000BC knowledge?

    To say that we can carry big stones in reed boats now, is a different statement from saying that Mesolithic Brits carried big stone in boats then! These are logically different statements. Proving one does not prove the other! Just one fallacy in your reasoning among many!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kostas

    What a strange view you have of the history of mankind.

    You been watching too many films of fur covered men with spears hiding in caves. When this stereotyping happens again you should ask yourself this question: How did these 'primitives' discover 'mortise and tenon joints' that was used to build Stonehenge and what else could they have used this technology for?

    (Hint... it also floats in water and carries even bigger stones than reed!!)

    If you don't wish to believe an independent verification of this process and so turn it into a conspiracy theory - that's up to you - but its not either logical, rational or scientific.

    If we can carry large stones NOW in reed boats using prehistoric technology, then so could our ancestors. As YES they were just as intelligent as us and in some cases even more so!

    RJL

    P.S. and Yes again, if we prove our Mesolithic ancestors used the Pythagorean theorem first to build Stonehenge and other structures in 8000BC then it should be renamed the 'Primitive fur covered' theorem - For most ancient Greek mathematical and philosophical knowledge was stolen from traders and travellers from other counties!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Robert,

    Are you now on record publicly claiming that the ancient Greeks stole their mathematics and philosophy from Mesolithic Britons? If such knowledge was 'known' to marauding seafaring traders, why didn't THEY record it in THEIR language? Why didn't THEIR language continue and persist through THEIR superior knowledge? Instead of having your every other word 'taken' from the Greek language, along with the Parthenon marbles?

    Robert, did you know that the word 'knowledge' is a GREEK word? These Mesolithic people did not even have a way of writing their NAME let alone knowing the “'Primitive fur covered' theorem”.

    Robert, think carefully! When your theory leads you to make such statements that go against ALL historical records and ALL common sense, it becomes 'alien' and a 'crime against humanity'. Misleading people away from Truth does not bring your theory closer to Truth!

    I just hope you are only seeking to stir up some controversy to gain some much needed traffic to your blog. But if you are in any way serious about what you are saying, you have lost all credibility with me and all others with 'intellectual integrity' and a commitment to Truth and Reason.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  25. Opps!

    I think I've found your 'achilles heel' Kostas

    ;-)

    Although, if you read Plato he does suggest as much! An interesting website called 'Stolen Legacy' also states:

    "Concerning the fact that Egypt was the greatest education centre of the ancient world which was also visited by the Greeks, reference must again be made to Plato in the Timaeus who tells us that Greek aspirants to wisdom visited Egypt for initiation, and that the priests of Sais used to refer to them as children in the Mysteries"

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/stle/stle08.htm

    More information will be contained in my second book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' due out in 2012 - I look forward to debating it with you then.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  26. Robert,

    I am a zealot for Truth and Reason! If that is my 'Achilles heel', I confess as much!

    As for the influence that ancient Egypt had on ancient Greeks, no one disputes it! But there is a vast difference between the practical use of right triangles in ancient Egypt and the Pythagorean Theorem that deduces this Truth through Reason.

    Interestingly, the Egypt of the Ptolemy Dynasty following Alexander the Great down to Cleopatra was a Greek chapter in History! Moreover, it was a Macedonian family that ruled Egypt up to the Roman times!

    But this raises a larger and more relevant issue to our debate of your lost Mesolithic Civilization of boat fairing Brits sailing the high seas, carrying stones, and educating the civilized world of Egypt and Greece on their advanced and technological knowledge.

    If such lost civilization ever existed, where is the Historical record that shows that level of cultural and commercial interaction? As for example exists between Egypt and Greece and so many other people?

    Even if we accept that such high civilization knew everything exept how to write and leave behind written records, where are such records of that hypothetical interaction left behind by ancient Egyptians or Greeks or any other culture with writing capabilities? None exist!

    Your lost Mesolithic Civilization is just a myth. You could avoid many logical fallacies in your theory if you were to have 'extraterrestrial visitors' building Stonehenge instead!

    As for your next book, I can only imagine the elaborate myths and narratives you are spinning disguised as History! You may be creating a new category of fiction: hysterical mythology!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm with Robert on this one, see my blog....

    http://mushroom-talk.blogspot.com/2011/05/lies-dam-lies-and-greeks.html

    No.6

    ReplyDelete
  28. Prisoner No. Sic!

    Your blog badly needs some fertilizer for your mushrooms growing in the dark. You wont get that from me, however! I prefer the Light. It's Truth and Reason that feeds my ideas, not bullshit and venom!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete