Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: [Dal Guestbook dei Flem-Ath] ARGOMENTI VALIDI DI UNA STRENUA DIFESA

4/13/97
From: Michael Brass, Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Comments: Great research you guys are doing. How would you
respond to other researchers like Paul Heinrich who
claim to have refuted the evidence you've put before the public?
When is your next book coming out? Thanks for your
time.
Thanks for your comments.
Paul Heinrich writes:
      "Rand and Rose Flem-Ath in their book When the Sky Fell
claim that the lost advanced civilization of Graham
      Hancock was Atlantis based upon a very liberal, loose, and
speculative interpretation of the myth of Atlantis
      as told by Plato."
Plato describes Atlantis as a vast, high altitude, mountainous
island continent in the "real Ocean" which had as a
series of islands near it. Seen from Atlantis,  a "whole opposite
continent" appeared to encircle the "real Ocean".
Antarctica is a high altitude, mountainous island continent in
what oceanographers call the "World Ocean".  It
does have a series of sub-glacial islands and seen from
Antarctica (as drawn by the US Naval Antarctic Support
Force) the rest of the world’s continents do indeed appear
encircle the "real Ocean".
 (See the text and graphics that accompany my presentation of the
Return to the Source Symposium in Delaware on
the 28th of September 1996 to judge for yourself if our
interpretation is "very liberal, loose, and speculative":
http://www.netfeed.com/pstevens/flem-ath.htm
)
(One minor point:  Since our book was published in January of
1995 it can hardly be said to "claim" anything
about  Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods which appeared
in April of that year. We hadn’t even read his
book.)
Paul Heinrich on Albert Einstein’s May 8th 1953 letter to
Hapgood.
Einstein wrote to Hapgood:
      "I find your arguments very impressive and have the
impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly
      doubt that significant shifts of the crust of the Earth
have taken place repeatedly and within a short period of
      time."
Heinrich’s comment:
      "When reading this quote, a person has to remember that it
was made in 1953 long before much of what is
      now known about plate tectonics; the structure of the
mantle and crust of the Earth; the Quaternary geology of
      Antarctica, Alaska, and Siberia; the creation of the
"frozen" mammoths and other animals; and many other
      things had been discovered. No matter how brilliant a
person might be, his conclusions can be only as good as
      the data that is available to them.  In the case of Dr.
Einstein, his conclusions are erroneous because they are
      built on data which research over the last 43 years have
shown to be incorrect and obsolete."
Albert Einstein’s support for Charles Hapgood has always been a
problem for those who are dogmatically opposed
to the theory of earth crust displacement. The evidence that
Einstein speaks of in his letter to Hapgood covered a
wide range of topics.  I have read the 179 pages of
correspondence between the two men which took place over a
period of two and a half years.
(see: 
http://www.lauralee.com/rflemath/index.htm
 for a very brief
summary).
While it is true that since Einstein’s death we have learned a
great deal more about the topics that are covered in
this correspondence it also true that some very fundamental facts
remain the same today as they were in 1953.
(Moreover, much of the evidence brought to light subsequent year
support the claims that Hapgood was making.  I
can only urge the reader to judge this case objectively by
reviewing the evidence that we put forward in When the
Sky Fell.)  The fact that Greater Antarctica is a polar desert
yet is home to the largest ice sheet on our planet was as
true in 1953 as it is today. The fact that Lesser Antarctica has
a very shallow ice sheet despite the fact that it receives
the bulk of the annual snowfall on the continent is as true today
as it was in 1953.  Clearly, the present is not the key
to the past on this problem.  Albert Einstein’s support for earth
crust displacement was based upon his argument
that "…the gradualist notions common in geology were … merely a
habit of mind, and were not necessarily justified
by the empirical data." (see page 3 of When the Sky Fell).
Speaking of the evidence that was presented to him,
Einstein wrote:
      "A great many empirical data indicate that at each point of
the earth’s surface that has been carefully studied,
      many climatic changes have taken place, apparently quite
suddenly." (see page 3 of When the Sky Fell).
The evidence that Einstein had at his command included simple
logical points.  If  Siberia was warm (see below)
and became cold at the same time that North America went from
being cold to warm then a common explanation
was needed.  Likewise, the development of new ice on Lesser
Antarctica at the same time that ice was melting on
North America points logically to a common cause.  These points
of logic remains as valid today as they were in
1953.
Heinrich writes:
      "There is absolutely no evidence that Siberia, northern
Canada, and northern Alaska suddenly became colder
      about 12,000 B.P., much less shifted."
He then goes on to selectively quote Dale R. Gutherie.  He
conveniently doesn’t mention that Professor Gutherie
wrote:
      "When I began to study the thousands of fossils collected
from Alaskan Pleistocene deposits, I found that 95
      percent were from bison, horse, and mammoth. How could
these grazing animals thrive in tundra landscape?"
      "Many forms appeared in Alaska which are not associated
with southern grasslands: badgers (Taxidea), ferrets
      (Mustela), bison (Bison), and grama grass (Bouteloua).
Eurasiatic forms like saiga antelope (Saiga), horses
      (Equus), and lion (Panthera) were mixed with the North
American short-faced bears (Arctodus) and camels
      (Camelops). Other species stretch the
imagination:sabertooth cats (Homotherium), yaks (Bos), and
      bonnet-horned musk oxen (Symbos)."
(Comment: Antelope are used by zoologists as markers of savanna
conditions. Horses, oxen and camels could not
survive one Alaskan winter today. This indicates that Alaska must
have been warmer.)
      "Neither glacial nor interglacial age Pleistocene biotic
provinces closely match those which occurred during
      the Holocene."
(Comment: The biotic provinces were radically different because
Alaska was further from the Arctic Circle, 12,000
years ago.)
      "The shift at the beginning of the Holocene occurred
rapidly. Wright (1970), in a synthesis of data relating to
      the Central Plains, argued for a relatively steep gradient
from about 12,000 to 11,000 B.P. which caused
      dissolution of the continent-wide boreal forest. Though the
Holarctic climate events began earlier and
      continued later, this critical millennium was near the
threshold of a major ecological change."
(Comment: Guthrie and Wright are clearly indicating the time
period between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago as
significant for "a major ecological change.")
 [Source: Guthrie, R. Dale. "Mosaics, Allelochemics and
Nutrients: An Ecological Theory of Late Pleistocene
Megafaunal Extinctions", in Martin, Paul S. and Richard G. Klein,
Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution,
Tucson Arizona, The University of Arizona Press, 1984, pp.
259-289.]
 In another article in the same book, the Russian zoologist, N.K.
Vereshchagin, stated his opinion that the
mammoths of Siberia:
      "… became extinct primarily as a result of the radical
reconstitution of climates and landscapes in northern
      Eurasia at the end of the last glacial epoch."
Versehchagin, N.K. and G.F. Baryshnikov. "Quarternary Mammalian
Extinctions in North Eurasia", in Martin, Paul S.
and Richard G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric
Revolution, Tucson Arizona, The University of Arizona
Press, 1984, page 492.
 Another Russian scientist, A.P. Okladnikov:
      "…believes that the late Pleistocene fauna of northern
Siberia may have contained as many as eight arctic
      species and twenty-six southern species."
(Comment: If three quarters of the species in northern Siberia
were adapted to the warmer southern climate then
Siberia must have been much warmer than it is today.  A warm
Siberia matched against a ice-encapsulated North
America doesn’t add up if the whole world was experiencing an Ice
Age. Rather than facing the implications of the
facts, Heinrich disputes the facts.  Is this honest scholarship?)
[Source:  Graham, Russell W. and Enrnest L. Lundelius, Jr.
"Coevolutionary
Disequilibrium and Pleistocence Extinctions", in Martin, Paul S.
and Richard G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions: A
Prehistoric Revolution, Tucson Arizona, The University of Arizona
Press, 1984, page 237.]
 (Overall Comment on Alaska and Siberia: Experts in the field
claim that Alaska and Siberia were warmer 12,000
years ago and the radical cooler climatic change that occurred at
that time was one of the principle reasons that
these animals became extinct.  This hardly agrees with Mr.
Heinrich’s statement: "There is absolutely no evidence
that Siberia, northern Canada, and northern Alaska suddenly
became colder about 12,000 B.P., much less shifted."
Lesser Antarctica is antipodal to Alaska and Siberia and thus
must have been warmer also.)
 Paul Heinrich wrote (1996/04/02):
      "Without reading his book, I would be unable to comment on
many of those, but When The Sky Fell certainly
      fails in its homework in regard to the beech trees. If he
had taken the time to do any real literature review at he
      would have found that the beech trees are at least, three
million years old, if not older."
We know perfectly well that the Antarctic beech trees are from
two to three million years old.  The point that was
being made was that plate tectonics, as a theory, was incapable
of explaining the existence of this forest so close to
the South Pole a mere two to three million years ago.This is not
to say that plate tectonics is wrong: it is simply
insufficient on its own to account for these facts. At the slow
pace of change demanded by plate tectonics the beech
trees would have to be many millions (not just 2 or 3 million) of
years old to be 200 miles from the South Pole. In
other words, to account for the beech forest on Antarctica we
need another whole earth theory to explain the
facts.Earth crust displacement is a complementary whole earth
theory to plate tectonics that can account for these
facts. We are not disputing the power of  the plate tectonic
theory:  we are simply adding another set of lens with
which the past might be viewed.
 Rose and are I are lumped in with every phenomena of our times
that might be labeled ‘fringe’ by those who are too
lazy to read. Heinrich writing tothe sci.archaeology news-group
(1997/02/19) makes an unjustified personal
accusation:
      "The problem that Hancock and his fellow travelers have
made it into a no-win situation for Lehner and
      Hawass.  No matter what is found, and especially if nothing
is found, Hancock, Flem-Ath, and any other
      person writing about Atlantis and the Sphinx will be
accusing both of being part of a cover-up."
I have never argued that there is a cover-up by anyone involved
in the Sphinx controversy. If Mr. Heinrich has any
evidence to the contrary he should present it.
 I will gladly respond to remarks and honest criticism left at my
website but will not spend any more time, for the
reasons given earlier, defending myself to pseudo-intellectuals
who do not even read the material that they are
trashing or who presume that they know my opinion ahead of time.
My intention in writing the book was always to
present what I hoped might be some possible explanations for some
very deep mysteries that have so far been
ignored or inadequately explained by science.  I don’t pretend
that every word will turn out to be precisely on target
- but I’ve done my best - and I hope that it stimulates the young
scientists - those unencumbered by dreams of tenure
and fixations about the past - to have another look at some of
the fascinating anomalies that are there to study.
Even a cursory look at the history of science reveals that it is
a field like every other human endeavor filled with
self-serving people subject to all the prejudices of the rest of
us. But also filled with creative and curious scholars
who want to keep pushing the frontiers forward. Of course, it is
complicated by the tenor of our times where
charlatans and yes, pseudoscience gains ground. I believe that we
have to be careful of those pits of irrationality.
But on the other hand I’m not so arrogant as to think that
‘science’ has the answer to everything about the material,
mental or spiritual world. Our reason is one of our most precious
faculties and I would never knowingly allow my
work to be used to undermine that aspect of our humanity.
Rand Flem-Ath

 they do to us today.
I would add those words the phrase 'Pillars of Hercules' which, like the 
Atlantic, settled in their present geographical location comparatively 
recently.
Of all the books I've read on Atlantis, the most impressive (and the one 
with the most archaeological evidence) is Rodney Castleden's Atlantis 
Destroyed, published this year by Routledge.  Castleden also wrote The 
Making of Stonehenge, The Knossos Labyrinth, The Stonehenge People, 
Neolithic Britain, and Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete. (And Classic 
Landforms of the Sussex Coast for the Geographical Association, but 
that's not relevant here!).
On page 7 he discusses the Pillars of Hercules:
"Before the sixth century BC several mountains on the edges of mainland 
Greece were seen as supports for the sky.  Amongst others, the two 
southward-pointing headlands on each side of the Gulf of Laconia were 
pillars of Heracles.  Then, to the Greeks, a large island with one end 
just outside the pillars of Heracles could only have meant Crete. [This 
isn't the sum of Castleden's thesis, wait for it]...Support for a 
Peloponnesian location for the pillars comes, unexpectedly, from Egypt.  
The Medinet Habu texts, dating from 1200 BC, describe the Sea Peoples 
invading from islands to the north (possibly the Aegean), 'from the 
pillars of heaven', by which the Egyptians probably meant that the 
invaders came from the end of the world as they knew it.'
He then goes on to say "The thesis of this book is that the story is not 
one piece of identifiable proto-history but several, and that Plato drew 
them together because he wanted to weave them into a parable that 
commented on the state of the world in his own times ... he wanted to 
entertain, improve and exalt his readers.  A distant memory of the Minoan 
civilization was available, preserved for his use, as he said, by the 
seventh century priests in the Nile delta.  The wealth, orderliness and 
strangeness of the Minoans are sketched in for us." Castleden then points 
out that Plato does not write about Atlantis as a utopia, but about 
Athens -- "It is the Athenians who are described in utopian terms.  It is 
they who have relinquished private property... and have prolific fields 
and boundless pastures.  It is Athens that is the excellent land with 
well-tempered seasons."
Castleden follows this with a very detailed discussion of the archaeology 
and geography of Minoan Crete and Thera and how that compares with 
Plato's tale.  He goes into detail about how the story might have been 
transmitted to Plato and Plato's possible motives in writing the two 
essays.  (He also mentions that there was a century older text by 
Hellanicus, of which only a small fragment survives, called 'Atlantis'!).
In the last chapter, he writes "There are several reasons why there have 
been so many misunderstandings about the nature of Atlantis and its 
location in time and space:
"1.  Plato left the various elements in the story's visible and 
undigested.  Although he altered it, he did not do so thoroughly and the 
result is that Atlantis as described cannot have existed at all.  That 
has led some commentators to claim mistakenly that the story is fiction 
from start to finish, and thus to overlook the proto-historical content.
"2.  The Egyptians who acquired the story in 1520 BC or shortly 
afterwards had a very different geographical sense from he Greeks of 
Plato's or Solon's time.  To the 16th-century Egyptians, the Aegean was a 
long way to the west.  When the story was passed to Solon, the known 
world was expanding rapidly, and either Solon or the priest may have 
assumed that Atlantis was out in the newly visited Atlantic Ocean.This 
mistake may actually have led to the ocean being named after the lost 
land, rather than the other way around as most people have assumed.
"3. The geographical mistake was compounded by a misreading of Linear A 
or B numerals, or a misreading of hieratic or demotic copies of the story 
made in Sais by Egyptian scribes, in the fifteenth century or later.  
This led to a tenfold exaggeration of many of the distance measurements, 
and a hundredfold exaggeration of area, so that the Plain of Mesara, 
instead of being small enough to fit into central Crete, was inflated to 
the size of the southern Aegean.  The land areas involved became too big 
to fit into the Mediterranean: another reason for removing Atlantis to 
the outer ocean.
"4.  A similar mistranslation of numerals led to an exaggeration of the 
900 years elapsing between Thera's destruction and Solon's Egyptian visit 
to 9000 years.  The idea of an advanced bronze age culture ...in 9600 BC 
has always been unacceptable to pre-historians, and that has helped to 
push Atlantis to the outer fringes of academic study.
[Here I'd like to interject that I've always been puzzled by those who 
believe in a 9600 BC Atlantis and ignore the archaeological evidence that 
there was no 9600 BC bronze age Athens.  They seem to want to say that 
half the story is true, the other half false.]
"5. The hypothesis revived repeatedly in the 20th century - that Minoan 
Crete was Atlantis - has proved inadequate ... The parallel hypothesis, 
based on more recent archaeological evidence, that Cycladic Thera was 
Atlantis is also in itself inadequate.  Because these hypotheses can be 
rejected separately, many have rejected the idea that Atlantis might have 
existed in the southern Aegean, understandably overlooking the 
possibility that if the two hypotheses are combined they do meet the 
needs of Plato's description.
6. -- omitted, about the Pillars of Heracles and dealt with above. 
"7. It is possible that contemporary allegorical readings of the tale 
were intended to be implicitly ironic, and that in relation to Sparta and 
Syracuse Plato intended Athens to be Atlantis.  From the execution of 
Socrates, Plato learned the value of cricumspection and may have chosen, 
for safety's sake, not to say directly what he meant."
What I find so impressive in this book, as I've said, is the wealth of 
archaeological evidence.
One final point. Castleden is holding to the later date for the Thera 
eruption, and includes an appendix justifying this.
Doug
-- 
 Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
 Submissions 
to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
 Requests To: 
arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
 Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

Back to the 'size' question. A very slight error in Solon's original 
text, and I can't reproduce the font, could have meant that the word 
translated as larger might have meant 'a middle point between Libya and 
Asia' -- which is where you will find Crete.  "The alternative pillars, 
at the edge of the early Athenian's world, were the two southernmost 
headlands of the Peloponnese, Caep Tainaron (Matapan) and Cape Malea: 
Crete was indeed a large island with on extremity not far outside these 
pillars of Hercules...(and it's) clear from the climate -- warm wet 
winters and hot dry summers (Crit. 118E) that Atlantis must have occupied 
a location within the Mediterranean basin..." (Castleden, p. 139).
