posted 11-05-2003 10:19         

As already I explained in another message, to Georgeos hcieron to him to sign a contract with a delegation of National Geographic in Spain that is called "Camino-Media". In the contract with this delegation of NG it is specified of clear way that the work would become for National Geographic like main adressee of the rights on the production of the documentary one, of the scientific expedition directed by Georgeos Diaz-Montexano.

Therefore, I suppose that it will be a department that it has to do with the financing and production of documentary of the National Geographic Channel.

A greeting of Maria.

posted 11-05-2003 18:34         

Correct. That is the producer that signed a contract with Georgeos. But they say that they cannot do nothing before the problem of Collina-Girard, because Georgeos still does not have the endorsement of any Academy of Sciences nor of any University of prestige.

Only yesterday Georgeos were speaking with their Direct Muchael Moffet, and it explained to him to Georgeos that the true reason by which nobody wants to publish the information for Georgeos is because it does not endorse to him or supports no scientific institution, and that they cannot do nothing because she is enough not even with the images.

That is, that as Georgeos is not recognized nor supported by any University or Scientific Institution he has to get annoyed and to allow that other that yes tinene recognition as Collina-Girard all the merits take. According to words of the Director of "CaminoMêdia", Georgeos cannot be made nothing change to the things nor the world. If Georgeos does not obtain that they support and they give the face to him by him, institutions or people recognized in the scientific world, because Georgeos will not have opportunity and Collina-Girard or anyone will take the merits of the discoveries.

If truely he is thus, as the director of the producer tells it, because then Georgeos is lost already the battle, because hardly we will find a University that is arranged to support to Georgeos.

A greeting of Maria.

posted 11-05-2003 21:00         

I have a few questions. I hope you don't mind.

Aren't there scientists working with Georgeos? What about their universities?

Since Georgeos has published in many magazines already, why is it suddenly difficult to find someone to cover the investigation?

Has the archaeological site been gridded? That means did you overlay a grid pattern on the area of the investigation so you know how this artifact relates to where that one was found, and so on.

How large is the site?

How did you analyze the striker pin to determine its composition?

posted 11-06-2003 18:29         

Georgeos is in Gibraltar and the environs investigating with several mimebros of the equipment (divers and geologists) new scientific tests that long channels carved in the ground of the marine bottom (on the rock) and perfect circular structures consist of. Perhaps

When it returns are more photos.

The Riven, Wright, and all those that make fun of of him so that they have to him envy and because they are racist, someday they will regret. While they dedicate themselves like vile and cowardly making fun of of Georgeos, and to insult behind (since he is not present to defend) Georgeos to him she continues descubrimiendo more and more conclusive tests scientific that they demonstrate his theory.

Thanks for your honesty and good heart.

A greeting of Maria.

posted 11-06-2003 19:42         

¿Porque no acercarse (preguntar) los universitarios de los cientificos en su equipo por el apoyo?

Non puedo creder que esta revista, Atlantis Rising non habrían saltado a l'opportunidad informar acerca de su investigacíon. ¿Habéis escrito al editor?

Penso que desearán ver una diagramma del sito. Debéis estar muy organizado triunfar. Y hacer sus mensajes más corte y al punto.

Necesitáis un agente en España en su sito che puede promover su causa a los ingleses y los americanos también el español.

Debéis pensar creativamente. ¿Tal vez os poníais en contacto con una celebridad?

Alternativamente, ¿porque no unirse hacer causa común con Jacques Collina-Girard?

Una solución perfecta.

---------------------
En ingles:

Maria,

Why not approach the universities of the scientists on your team for support?

I cannot believe that this magazine, Atlantis Rising, would not jump at the chance to cover your investigation. Have you written to the editor?

I think that they would like to see a diagram of the site. You have to be very organized to succeed. And make your messages shorter and to the point.

You need an agent in Spain at your site to promote your cause to both English speaking and Spanish speaking people.

You must think creatively. Perhaps contact a celebrity to promote your cause?

Alternatively, why not join forces with Jacques Collina Girard. That would be the perfect solution.

posted 11-06-2003 20:43         

Georgeos have tried to propose to him (for almost two years) to Collina-Girard to share the knowledge and the expedition and the only thing that received from Collina-Girard were a kick in the buttock, a stab by the back, a treason.

Atlantis Rising (The Magazine) not even have responded. And a letter translated by a bilingual professional was sent to him, I I do not have it right now, but when Georgeos happens to me the copy I will publish it so that it sees that it is a correct translation.

Dear friend, seem that to You you cost to realize to him that to Georgeos they reject to him and probably for the same reasons that now Riven and Erick Wright reject to him and they insult to him.

At heart I think that no magazine that it dedicates to the mysteries and enigmas interests to him to publish the discovery of Georgeos and you know You because, because the directors of magazines are intelligent and very astute people, with a great commercial mentality, and they have realized that exists a great probability that Georgeos has really discovered the Atlantis, and that is the something that cannot be permirtir, nonsingle because it is Hispanic-cuban, that unfortunately, for many is like to say "being of race or class social inferior" (for example, surely that that thinks the Riven and the Erick), most dangerous for a publisher if it contributes to disclose the descubrinmientos of Georgeos is that this could mean the aim of the mystery of Atlantis. And that since or it has said somebody in the Forum of Graham Hancock would be something "very terrible", because many magazines that live on the mystery and to make them when there are no them, they would have to resign to of both or three subjects the more recurrent and used like material of speculation in magazines and the covers to attract the reading public.

If all the main publishers of magazines accept the discoveries of Georgeos, people are not stupid idiot, soon would begin to reunite the pieces of the puzzle, it stops most of the people the discoveries of Georgeos would be the unique ones who would fit with the descriptions of Plato and the old cronistas, then, if everything fits already, because Georgeos would have descubrido the Atlantis and as of that moment, more never, no magazine could return to publish in its cover: "Atlantis Have been discovered" or Discovered Atlantis.

You at great length and will understand that the true cause by which much people have put themselves nervous and until aggressive against Georgeos is by this. There is no another explanation.

By the others, him advance that right now I finish finding out by telephone that soon the Institute of Geology, the University of Cordova, and the University of Barcelona is going to take concrete steps in Georgeos please, they are going to name professor him to collaborate and to title and are going to give him to public recognition to its theory and its findings. Before the temos of which Collina-Girard robbed the merits of these discoveries to the Spaniards have finally decided to commit themselves.

Only I hope that that moment arrives, and whichever I would like to be in front of the Riven and Wright, to see the expression of his faces. I only hope that not them of an infarct.

A greeting of Maria.

posted 11-07-2003 15:04         

Seem lie that You is created that answer. You think that the equipment that defends the interests of Collina-Girard is going to be so stupid to recognize whatever a letter writes that yes, that is truth that Collina Girard was inspired by the works of Georgeos and that, in effect, it tries to take advantage of Georgeos and to take the merits at the cost of the investigations of Georgeos?

Only an idiot could hope that the Collina Girard or its equipment recognized something thus.

As You hate and envy to Georgeos, You prefer to believe French (in order she counts for You you are good to be from French, that always has been brothers of the Canadians which of a Hispanic)

What matters is not that they deny that they have taken advantage of the studies of Georgeos, that is logical and they will always deny it. The truely important thing is that Georgeos can demonstrate that it published in several magazines (that are sold in France) and in Internet his theory of Atlantis in Gibraltar in the submerged archipelago where is the Island of Majuan, the same one that Collina-Girard before called Spartel Island (to seem original, but that now finally it calls by his name that is, Island of Majuan.

East subject will have to solve in the courts. Collina Girard is going to have to demonstrate that it reached the same conclusion who Georgeos by mere chance and before Georgeos, as he cannot demonstrate it, because he will have to recognize publicly that, at least, Georgeos developed to the same theory before he.

Is true shame that You and other members of this Forum that represents the heterodox face of the history, prefer to ignore tests that has exposed in this Forum that demonstrates that Georgeos published his theory before Collina-Girard, and that base of theory is same that is, "Atlantis in Gibraltar or in front of mouth of Straits of Gibraltar", little inmporta if are archaeological rest in the Island of Majuan (propose by Georgeos before Collina-Girard or in other submerged Islands and peninsulas that are near the same area (between which already Georgeos has found scientific tests), little matters that these evidences have 900 years before Solón or 9,000, the truely important thing is that the theory of the Atlantis in Gibraltar would be verified scientifically and first that developed this theory it was Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, no matter how much to You this you bother and him to him of rage. We already know that You and their Erick pal hates to Georgeos and prefers that he is a French the one that takes the merits although it is of unjust way.

But uqe really matter is the truth. "Nothing has superior to the truth", and I repeat no matter how much they look for and by many letters that You they send to Collina-Girard or to that is never they are going to find nor a single test that before Georgeos Collina-Girard or who is, it defended the same theory. I repeat once again: Georgeos has been first in defending the theory of Atlantis in the submerged archipelago of Gibraltar and also it has been first in showing scientific tests of archaeological devices found by a team of Spanish scientists. Already that this him jode to You much, but I feel it. That is the truth that right now exists. It likes or no.

A greeting of Maria

posted 11-07-2003 19:00         

I really think you should stop whining here on the forums. Scientific theories are not copyrightable. If Georgeos comes up with a theory and starts publishing it others have every right to put that theory to the test. Further, I think it's Georgeos own fault. He should't have published his theory before he was certain that the expedition would go. Personally I don't care a bit who goes out on the expedition to look for Atlantis. All I care for is that someone finds it (if it exists ofcourse). When I hear that that French guy goes out with the team that found the Titanic I must say that gives me a bit more hope than Georgeos with his snorkle.
So stop whining about your own mistakes and live with them, or find a lawyer and see what he can do, but please stop asking on the forums for help. It's pathetic to see an 'organisation' asking for help on a forum like AR

posted 11-08-2003 03:36         

Suppose I know the location of a pot of gold and I start yelling it around on forums and magazines etc., before I actually go collect it myself. Should I then be surprised or go mad when someone else goes out to that location and collects it? I don't think so.

posted 11-10-2003 01:35         

As to the difference between Georgeos Diaz-Montexano and Jacques Collina-Girard, I see it as this:

The difference between the two, however, is evidence.

Without evidence, there can be no archaeology. Only speculation.

GD-M's hypothesis is that a lost civilization called Atlantis resides in the west mouth of the Straight of Gibralter. His evidence appears spurious as it lacks provenience descriptions. His research seems to only appeal to myths that surround Atlantis or involve misread features along the Spanish coastline (features that any archaeologist or geologist should easily identify/verify). Most importantly, GD-M offers absolutely no context to the artifacts he's claimed to have located.

This is one of the most telling characteristics of pseudoarchaeology, for context is paramount to the archaeologist. Artifacts without context can offer only very limited information to the archaeologist and are nearly useless. If GD-M is truly locating and removing artifacts without recording their context and provenience, then he is nothing more than a looter.

Conversely, looking at JC-G's work we can see that his investigation is thorough. Before any archaeological expedition can begin, there are months (sometimes years) of meticulous research involved. Going to libraries, reading journals, visiting historical societies, reviewing previous geological and archaeological research in the area you are about to examine, etc. His hypothesis paper's research shows his efforts.

JC-G's hypothesis is that a land bridge once connected Africa and Europe during the late Pleistocene that would have allowed pre-historic Homo sapiens to cross into Europe and perhaps settle in the landmass between until sea levels eventually rose to 56 to 200 m above the landmass.

To support this hypothesis, JC-G has cited previous anthropological studies that have demonstrated that oral traditions can lead to mythology with some basis in fact, such as the "time of darkness" experienced during volcanic events in Papau New Guinea or the flooding of the Black Sea and great flood myths of the region.

For GD-M, the wonder of lost civilizations appears to be the main theme, as well as the supporting theme of being the "next Schliemann." Ironically, Schliemann was the one who bankrolled the Troy excavation/expedition, it was Calvert that actually found Troy and understood what the features on his land represented. But I suspect that what GD-M actuall seeks is what Schliemann did get: prestige and fame.
For JC-G, the wonder of human migration in pre-historic times and the implications this might have on anthropology is the main theme. That it might satisfy an old myth of a "lost civilization" is secondary and unimportant to the overall research. I suspect that JC-G would be just as eager to explore his hypothesis even if Atlantis were discovered elswhere tomorrow.

If you think that I'm making assumptions, compare again: look at the claims that both are making. Ask which has extraordinary claims that haven't even mediocre evidence (verifiable)? And which has moderate claims with moderate evidence?

The only claims so far that I see that JC-G has made is that a shoal exists at a specific depth at a specific long/lat. Easily backed with geology. He also states that underwater geology indicates "notching" along the coastlines, which are consistent with former shorelines during late Pleistocene. Easily backed with geologic data.

GD-M claims that he's located an underwater city. No long/lat. He claims that said city has artifacts along the lines of that expected in a civilization contemporary to those existing at about 2000 b.c. He claims this civilization flourished 9000 + b.c. which is contrary to all previous archaeologic finds the world over. His evidence is photographs. No context. No provenience. No detailed excavation report. No support of additional scientific staff (geologists, oceanographers, cartographers, biologists, fellow arhaeologists... etc.)
At best, I expect JC-G to find some pot sherds and Archeulean tools. These will be significant to anthropologists and archaeologists who will be very excited to read his papers... but the rest of the world will be bored. No roads, gold statues, bronze shields, smelting plants/factories... etc.
I say again.

Here's my question for Maria/Georgeos (probably one in the same): what are Georgeos' credentials? What university did he learn archaeology at? What university did he receive what degree?

posted 11-10-2003 16:59         

Are obvious that it finishes beginning an authentic one crossed or "hunting of witches" against Georgeos. Once again the history of always is repeated: The "powerful ones" that represents the official "and" conventional "version" of Science and History against the independent investigator and frees, against the "amateur".

If the thing follows as it goes the case of J. Collina-Girard against Georgeos Diaz-Montexano will happen to history as a symbol of the fight of interests between the pro-government and orthodox academic world, and the world heterodox amateur or.

What is truely repugnant, are that in one Ready like AR, the free and heterodox representative of the world of the amateur and investigators, more credit is occurring him and following the game the "inquisidores" of the pro-government "and" orthodox "world".

Are that perhaps nobody sees, that all these attacks against Georgeos, at heart what they try to conceal is the fear to that the works of Georgeos are recognized world-wide. If this got to happen (and surely that ocurrira ') the academic scientists with all its títulaciones and decorations would once again return to be in a great ridiculous situation since it has already happened with other great discoveries of the Hsitoria that systematically were denied by the representatives of the "Official and Orthodox Opresora Force of Science".

Let us remember only the example of Troy, because he is the one that looks like more. Or also we can remember the case of the discovery of famous cave paintings of the Cuevâs de Altamîra (Santander, Spain) in 1879, by a called girl single Maria of 9 years of age that was daughter of D. Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola (a "amateur", scholar in paleontology). Mr. Sanz de Sautuola, died in the absolute shame and humiliation (destroyed morally and psychically) because all the orthodox academic scientists of their time (fundamentally the French, that chance!) accused of farsante and until to have been he himself the one to him that had falsified paintings.

The official academic world of those times, could not support (just as now with the discoveries of Georgeos) that simple a girl and her father, simple "amateurs" happened to history like the discoverers of the more impressive and important prehistoric cave paintings that they had never been and that above broke all the schemes already established on the level of wild development and primitive that was adjudged to the man of the superior paleolítico. Exactly for the same reasons it is being tried to discredit and to humiliate to Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, who peculiarly is descending of Spaniards and lives in Spain. History repeats,y once again are the French the authors and propulsive of this new inquisición against another erudite "amateur".

They destroyed in life to Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola, and all the scientists of that time constribuyeron has to sink to him morally and to discredit to him, until the own Spanish scientists. The same they try to make other French with Georgeos now, and at the moment, the Spanish scientists - who are first that would have to fight not to allow that the French snatch the discovery to him of the possible Atlantis island in Gibraltar are allowing (like quiet complices) that crucifique to Georgeos only by not pertencer to the sect of the orthodox academic scientists.

Returning to the case of Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola. The peculiar thing is that many years after to have passed away, the French they discovered in their territory other caves with almost identical paintings, of the same style and equal period, then the paintings, now if they had to be authentic, therefore did not have left more remedy than to recognize than those of Spain also they were it or otherwise they would have to admit that those that they had discovered in France, they were also false.

This are a fragment taken from a page dedicated to Altamira:
--------------------------------------------

Al año siguiente, 1880, don Marcelino publica una breve opúsculo titulado Breves apuntes sobre algunos objetos prehistóricos de la provincia de Santander en el que sostenía el origen prehistórico de las pinturas e incluía una reproducción gráfica hecha por el mismo descubridor. Expuso sus tesis al catedrático de Geología de la Universidad de Madrid, don Juan de Vilanova, que las acogió como propias. Pese a todo la opinión de Sautuola no fue aceptada por los prestigiosos maestros franceses Cartailhac, Mortillet y Harlé, los científicos más expertos en estudios prehistóricos y paleontólogicos en Europa. La novedad del descubrimiento era tan sorprendente que provoca la lógica desconfianza de los estudiosos, incluso se llega a sugerir que el propio don Marcelino debió de pintarlas entre las dos vistas que realizo a la caverna, negando así su origen paleolítico. Ni la ardiente defensa de Vilanova en el Congreso Internacional de Antropología y Arqueología celebrado en Lisboa el año 1880, ni el afán de Sautuola evitaron la descalificación de Altamira, la oposición se hace cada vez más generalizada. En España, el presidente de la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural el 1 de diciembre de 1886 dictaminaba diciendo que "... tales pinturas no tiene caracteres del arte de la Edad de piedra, ni arcaico, ni asirio, ni fenicio, y sólo la expresión que daría un mediano discípulo de la escuela moderna...". Sautuola y sus pocos seguidores lucharon contra esa sentencia. La muerte de don Marcelino (1888) y la de Vilanova (1892) parecían condenar definitivamente las pinturas de Altamira como una fraudulenta realización moderna. La aceptación de las pinturas no se produce hasta 1902.

En su reconocimiento destacó muy positivamente Abbé Breuil, organizador en 1902 de un Congreso de la Asociación Francesa para el Progreso de las Ciencias, cuyos trabajos en torno al tema "el arte parietal" provocaron cambios substanciales en la mentalidad de los investigadores del momento. Cartailhac, uno de sus más grandes opositores a la autenticidad de Altamira, ante el descubrimiento, a partir de 1895, de grabados y pinturas en las cuevas francesas de La Mouthe, Combarelles y Font-de-Gaume, rectificó su postura y tras visitar las cuevas de Altamira escribió en la revista La Antropología (1902) un artículo titulado La grotte d' Altamira. Mea culpa d' un sceptique. Su artículo supuso el reconocimiento universal del carácter paleolítico de las pinturas de Altamira.
http://centros5.pntic.mec.es/ies.juana.de.castilla/altamira.htm
--------------------------------------------

My question are: one will become to now repeat history with the theories and discoveries of Georgeos?

We will remain all of crossed arms and we will allow that once again it returns to happen the same injustice?

I not, if the members of this Forum, and all in which Georgeos has been participating, and sharing their knowledge and discoveries, during almost three years, are going it to allow, single I that I am not going away to be calm allowing who repeat history and who sink the image and prestige like methodical investigator and rigorous that Georgeos has gained in so many years and that she would have to be a motico example of pride for all the "amateur" and "heterodox" of the world. If I do not do anything so that justice to Georgeos is made and restrain the campaign against Georgeos, then, automatically I will become one more an accomplice of the inquisidores of the knowledge.

A greeting of Maria.

posted 11-10-2003 18:18         

quote:

---

GD-M's hypothesis is that a lost civilization called Atlantis resides in the west mouth of the Straight of Gibralter. His evidence appears spurious as it lacks provenience descriptions. His research seems to only appeal to myths that surround Atlantis or involve misread features along the Spanish coastline (features that any archaeologist or geologist should easily identify/verify). Most importantly, GD-M offers absolutely no context to the artifacts he's claimed to have located.

---

quote:

---

This is one of the most telling characteristics of pseudoarchaeology, for context is paramount to the archaeologist. Artifacts without context can offer only very limited information to the archaeologist and are nearly useless.

---

How long does it take to prepare such a diagram? If you had a team working an underwater site, cfeagans, how long before you would be ready to present your case to the public?

quote:

---

If GD-M is truly locating and removing artifacts without recording their context and provenience, then he is nothing more than a looter.

---

You are clearly looking for a fight.

quote:

---

Conversely, looking at JC-G's work we can see that his investigation is thorough. Before any archaeological expedition can begin, there are months (sometimes years) of meticulous research involved. Going to libraries, reading journals, visiting historical societies, reviewing previous geological and archaeological research in the area you are about to examine, etc. His hypothesis paper's research shows his efforts.

---

If Georgeos is translating ancient texts, he must certainly be visiting libraries, doing a lot of reading. He told of a presentation he did at a university. Maria would you care to comment on this?

quote:

---

JC-G's hypothesis is that a land bridge once connected Africa and Europe during the late Pleistocene that would have allowed pre-historic Homo sapiens to cross into Europe and perhaps settle in the landmass between until sea levels eventually rose to 56 to 200 m above the landmass.

To support this hypothesis, JC-G has cited previous anthropological studies that have demonstrated that oral traditions can lead to mythology with some basis in fact, such as the "time of darkness" experienced during volcanic events in Papau New Guinea or the flooding of the Black Sea and great flood myths of the region.

For GD-M, the wonder of lost civilizations appears to be the main theme, as well as the supporting theme of being the "next Schliemann."

---

Well now you are picking and choosing what we may wonder about. It is wrong to study ancient manuscripts and ancient languages? It seems that that is very similar to what JCG is doing with his study of oral historical legends.

quote:

---

.........For JC-G, the wonder of human migration in pre-historic times and the implications this might have on anthropology is the main theme. That it might satisfy an old myth of a "lost civilization" is secondary and unimportant to the overall research. I suspect that JC-G would be just as eager to explore his hypothesis even if Atlantis were discovered elswhere tomorrow.

---

You are so smug. JCG's very website is called LOOKING FOR ATLANTIS, http://www.lookingforatlantis.com/mainframe.html
not http://www. SeekingtheGibraltar-MoroccanLandBridge.org

quote:

---

If you think that I'm making assumptions, compare again: look at the claims that both are making. Ask which has extraordinary claims that haven't even mediocre evidence (verifiable)? And which has moderate claims with moderate evidence?

---

Doesn't matter if they are moderate or grandiose claims, so long as one can substantiate such claims. We are still waiting on data. You are so impatient.

quote:

---

GD-M claims that he's located an underwater city. No long/lat.

---

You are in trouble now. Did you, or did you not, say that Georgeos should absolutely NOT give out long/lat, as the site could be compromised by others? Now, make up your mind!

quote:

---

He claims that said city has artifacts along the lines of that expected in a civilization contemporary to those existing at about 2000 b.c. He claims this civilization flourished 9000 + b.c. which is contrary to all previous archaeologic finds the world over.

---

Better read both Georgeos and JCG's views again, very carefully. It is JCG who says 9000 + b.c.

It is Georgeos who says 900 years. Major blunder on your part. It does not pay to be pompous.

quote:

---

No support of additional scientific staff (geologists, oceanographers, cartographers, biologists, fellow arhaeologists... etc.)

---

Maria named the team members:

"Between the members of the expedition are specialists and scientists like Juan Naval Luis (historian and official cronist), Gem Tirado and Maria Fdez-Valmayor (Investigation and documentation), Antonio Font (engineering and architecture), Raul Menasalvas (subaqueous archaeology), Antonio Daza and Esteban Wheat Márquez (geology and geominería); as well as the following explorers and subaqueous investigators: Beatriz Lumbreras , Marsal Grifa , Manuel Santana, Miguel Aragón , Naval Filomeno , and Antonio Lucas Of the Moral ."
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000731.html

Maria, could you give details of each team member's university, or tell their archaeological/marine experience?

quote:

---

Jacques Collina-Girard is the real news. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is the pseudoscience.
Cheers.

---

posted 11-10-2003 21:27         

I'm sure that I would want to have *some*thing to present as soon as possible in order to satisfy those that were funding my budget. Even if it were preliminary, I would probably write my reports following each excursion, based upon my daily log. Context would be recorded while artifacts were in situ as they were found. The excavation would begin with a site plan already drawn and excavation units in place on the ground (delineated by physical markers). Each artifact would be recorded THOROUGHLY by multiple photographs at multiple angles and with scale/direction markers. The artifact would then be recorded on the site plan. I'm undoubtedly skipping steps that seasoned archaeological crew chiefs would do, but that's the general idea. Provenience would be recorded with photos, site plan sketches, and verbose description of the in situ artifact as well as the method of its excavation.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If GD-M is truly locating and removing artifacts without recording their context and provenience, then he is nothing more than a looter."

You are clearly looking for a fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I was clearly stating the obvious. Perhaps not. For all those that think archaeology involves "Indiana Jones" methodology of grabbing the loot and taking it to the museum, REAL archaeology involves the steps I mentioned above FIRST. Provenience and context are often more important than the artifact itself. The goal of archaeology is to reconstruct the past and determine how our ancestors lived; what their culture was like; etc. Simply diving on a site and removing artifacts is looting. Pure and simple. The context MUST be recorded in order for science to be conducted.

If Georgeos is recording provenience and context, he definitely isn't sharing it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Georgeos is translating ancient texts, he must certainly be visiting libraries, doing a lot of reading. He told of a presentation he did at a university. Maria would you care to comment on this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, this is a good example of context I was using the "library/research" discussion to demonstrate that JC-G *had* begun his investigation already. NileQueen mentioned that it had yet to start in another thread. Out of context, this paragraph seems to mean something else entirely.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now you are picking and choosing what we may wonder about. It is wrong to study ancient manuscripts and ancient languages? It seems that that is very similar to what JCG is doing with his study of oral historical legends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a difference between appealing to myths and citing prior research of other scientists. JC-G's oral tradition research is meant to *corroborate* the physical evidence which supports his hypothesis. It is not the primary source of his hypothesis. At least not that I could tell. The geology of the region appears to be the primary source.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so smug. JCG's very website is called LOOKING FOR ATLANTIS,
not [URL=http://www.]http://www. SeekingtheGibraltar-MoroccanLandBridge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But we also have to consider that the "lookingforatlantis" website was created by another individual, albeit with JC-G's approval. JC-G himself stated to both of us that this other individual's "enthusiasm" is high and indicated that he is excited about Atlantis. JC-G also indicated that that land bridge was his main concern. In addition, his research bears this out (the land bridge theme).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter if they are moderate or grandiose claims, so long as one can substantiate such claims. We are still waiting on data. You are so impatient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Georgeos is not ready to release data, then why say to the world, "hey look at me!" That he is merely defending his "first to have a theory," claim doesn't hold up, since he sought attention prior to JC-G. If anything, he should be trying to share data with JC-G. I'm impatient because there's an off chance that Georgeos is actually recovering artifacts and without provenience/context records. Even amateurs can act with a bit of professionalism. Amateur archaeological societies all over the world work to this effort in order to prevent contamination of the archaeological record.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"GD-M claims that he's located an underwater city. No long/lat."

You are in trouble now. Did you, or did you not, say that Georgeos should absolutely NOT give out long/lat, as the site could be compromised by others? Now, make up your mind!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He shouldn't post the lat/long on the Internet where treasure hunters and looters might lurk. But in the United States, an archaeologist (even an amateur) registers his/her site with state and/or federal officials where the site becomes a matter of record. This is to protect the site and to offer an opportunity for authorized (professional archaeologists) to examine the evidence and add to the research. Or use it to augment one's own research.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better read both Georgeos and JCG's views again, very carefully. It is JCG who says 9000 + b.c. It is Georgeos who says 900 years. Major blunder on your part. It does not pay to be pompous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it is a blunder... I honestly get confused attempting to read this linguist's material and claims. It's as if he really doesn't want anyone to fully understand what he's saying. But undoubtedly this is merely my perception.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria named the team members:

Maria, could you give details of each team member's university, or tell their archaeological/marine experience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay... I'll assume these are actual people with actual credentials... still; I'd like to see the information you ask of Maria. In addition, I'd like to see the answer to the question I asked: what is Georgeos' education? What degree and from where?

Perhaps she noted it above... I'll have to re-read that post.

Perhaps I've got Georgeos all wrong. Maybe I should have stuck to simply asking questions, since this is what Georgeos' claims have created for me. The absence of answers is what leads me to believe pseudoarchaeology is at work.

1) What is Georgeos' education background that qualifies him to lead (is he the lead?) and archaeological expedition?
2) What is the context of the artifacts that were depicted in the photos? How do they relate to one-another in situ?
3) What is the evidence that leads Georgeos to claim that the apparently copper/brass artifact was a "striker pin?"
4) Where is the site plan of the region that shows how all the artifacts are positioned in relation to each other?
5) Why is it not possible that Jacques Collina-Girard came about his hypothesis on his own after observation of geology and corroboration of oral tradition turned mythology?
6) What evidence exists to disprove the negative hypothesis that the artifacts depicted in Georgeos' photos are not from shipwrecks. Ships often carried ballast in the form of bricks. Trade goods often included a variety of items. Could not some if not all of the artifacts have been from shipwrecks?
7) What geologic evidence exists to disprove the negative hypothesis that features found are natural formations not manmade?
8) Is Georgeos using a method similar to this for laying out excavation units in an underwater archaeological site?
9) Wasn't it Adolf Schulten in his book, Tartessos., that first suggested a land bridge between Spain and Morocco in 1950? And didn't he attribute this to the mythology of Atlantis as well?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cheers" is generally considered friendly closing, but I don't think Georgeos & Maria are going to want to have a drink with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might be pompous, but that doesn't mean I have to lose civility. I disagree… not necessarily dislike.

So…. Cheers!

[This message has been edited by cfeagans (edited 11-11-2003).]

posted 11-11-2003 04:23         

Thank you for your comments. It's nice to see a rational discussion in these parts once in a while.

Cheers to you as well!

posted 11-11-2003 05:18         

NQ: "Better read both Georgeos and JCG's views again, very carefully. It is JCG who says 9000 + b.c."

CF: "Perhaps it is a blunder... I honestly get confused attempting to read this linguist's material and claims. It's as if he really doesn't want anyone to fully understand what he's saying. But undoubtedly this is merely my perception."

You totally ignored the fact here that you used your arguments against JCG, who is looking for 11,000 y old artefacts.

CF: "But we also have to consider that the "lookingforatlantis" website was created by another individual, albeit with JC-G's approval."

JCG is the team leader and is responsible for what his crew does. He also has a PR man. So, good or bad, they are actively using the Atlantis theme.

posted 11-11-2003 10:46         

quote:

---

It is uncivil, cfeagans, to tell someone they are a robber. At least, I've never heard it done in polite circles.

---

What I said was, " Simply diving on a site and removing artifacts is looting," and that if Georgeos is doing so without recording the provenience and context, that that amounts to looting.

quote:

---

You totally ignored the fact here that you used your arguments against JCG, who is looking for 11,000 y old artefacts.

---

Actually, I'm betting that any artifacts found will date to 10,000+ years ago if they aren't from later shipwrecks. My problem with Georgeos' "900 years", is that it doesn't jive with the geology.

quote:

---

JCG is the team leader and is responsible for what his crew does. He also has a PR man. So, good or bad, they are actively using the Atlantis theme.

---

Much the same way Georgeos is responsible for Maria's remarks?

posted 11-11-2003 13:40         

quote:

---

L’Atlantide devant le détroit de Gibraltar ? Mythe et géologie
Jacques Collina-Girard*

UMR 6636 du CNRS, MMSH, 5, rue du Château-de-l’Horloge, BP 647, 13094 Aix-en-Provence, France

Reçu le 15 mars 2001 ; accepté le 25 juin 2001 Présenté par Jean Dercourt

Abstract – Atlantis off the Gibraltar Strait? Myth and geology.
The bathymetric maps from the western part of the Gibraltar Strait indicate the occurrence of a shoal between –56 and –200 m depth.

(…) This location, the palaeolandscapes for the Late Glacial period, and the time of submergence exactly fit the Atlantis description given by Plato in the ‘Timaeus’. The ‘mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia’ could be the irrupting culture of northern Europe pushed to the south by the rough climates of the Late Glacial Maximum.

(c)2001 Académie des sciences / Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS

4.1. location of Atlantis
Timaeus: ”and there was an island situated in front of the straits, which is called by you the pillars of Hercules”
Geology: “a submerged island exists, exactly facing the western part of the Gibraltar strait”
4.3. Dimensions of Atlantis
Timaeus: “The island was larger than Libya and Asia combined”
Geology: The geological data do not fit this large size. The magnifying effect of 9000 years verbal tradition and lack of real efficent medium for measuring distances, could explain such a discrepancy. etc (…)

(NOTE thanks to the "Pseudo" science of Georgeos and confirmed by the science of Erick, we know that Plato has written “better” than instead of larger than, Andre)

5. Conclusion
It is, at present, admitted that the memory of very old events could be transmitted by oral traditions….

---

Now, every scientist knows, thinking in a very small box, that Atlantis is a pure fable, unconditionally, positive bias. If you dare and even remotely suggest that it may be not, you get your threads moved to Pseudoscience immediately, no trial, just verdict.

Yes I know, I know, I sticked out my neck and lost the bias battle and a certain somebody won't stop spamming until he is very sure that his is much longer than mine.

So this scientific publication cannot not exist, can it? JCG is a scientist, isn't he? JCG could never have admitted that Plato did not tell fables all the time, could he?

Note: I personally disagree with JCG on a few technical counts but that should not nearly be as bad as the battles here.

posted 11-12-2003 12:56         

But whether the looting of a site is legal or illegal is simply a matter of semantics. David Gill (1994), of the University of Whales put it like this, "Archaeological sites around the Mediterranean and elsewhere are suffering major damage due to systematic and illicit excavations in order to supply the needs of the antiquities market." He also points out, " lack of archaeological context raises questions about authenticity, date, and setting which may never be satisfactorily answered by connoisseurship."

The lack of provenience and context records keeps archaeologists from using the information for research (Economist, 2002). Even what might be seen as a very mundane bit of statistical data on the individual positions of several hundred unglazed, unslipped bricks could in all actuality be valuable to the researcher who wants to create a statistical model of several sites. This could tell how the ship sank: did it break up first, run aground, etc?

Also, many societies have codes of ethics to which their members are expected to adhere to. Georgeos is said to belong to at least one or two, and if they are serious societies then they undoubtedly have their own ethics codes. An example of these types of ethics can be found with the American Cultural Resources Association.

[size=1]American Cultural Resources Association. Code of Ethics.

Economist, (2002). Can you dig it? The Economist. Science & Technology: Ethics and Archaeology, March 28, 2002. Found on the internet at: http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1056932