Writing to Atlantis Rising, via snail mail or e-mail is the best, but not the only way to make your views known to our readers. There are also “forums” on the Atlantis Rising web site. (You can go to www.Atlantis Rising.com and select “Discussions”.)
The fossil record can give but little information about how animal behaviors “evolve.” (“The Forbidden Archaeologist,” A.R. #77) But I would challenge Darwinists to propose believable scenarios to explain how certain behaviors might have “evolved,” especially cases of symbiosis and the behaviors of social insects.
For example, bees and other pollinators do a service for plants and are paid for their labor with nectar. But why would bees have evolved to feed on nectar unless angiosperms already existed? And how would some angiosperms have evolved unless the pollinators already existed? This seems to be an example of irreducible complexity on a large scale. And how did bees learn to make and store honey and to build complex hives? And how did they and other social insects develop their caste system, with one fertile queen and a workforce of sterile females?
Leaf cutter ants harvest leaves and, rather than consuming them directly, use them to grow a fungus which is their food. Other ants herd and protect aphids, and “milk” them for a sugary liquid. Can an atheist/materialist/ Darwinist explain how this came to be, or rather how it might have come to be?
A species of shrimp rooms with a small fish. The shrimp with its claws digs its burrow. The fish, with better vision, acts as a lookout, warning of the approach of predators.
Beavers build dams to produce lakes deep and wide enough to protect their large houses, which have ventilation holes at the top and underwater entrances. And they dig canals to float heavy logs to their lakes. How can random mutation and natural selection explain this complex behavior?
William B Stoecker Sacramento, CA
Regarding the short article, “Cambodian Temple Stegosaur Mystifies Orthodox Science.” in Volume #76: In “Message of the Sphinx,” by Graham Hancock, the author speculates that ancient astronomers were able to “go down to any sky,” and suggested that this was a reference to their ability to “time travel” by calculating where the stars would be at any given time in the future (or where they had been at any given time in the past). Perhaps there was more to this “time travel” than is suggested by the metaphor.
Les Griswold Internet
Reader to Reader
In response to Michael Fortner (Reader Forum, A.R. #77) and his insight on “The Historical Jesus”—a very controversial topic—I have done much research and reading into this and whatever most readers may think of Ralph Ellis, his book King Jesus, from Kam (Egypt) to Camelot offers a great scholastic forensic view into Jesus’ life.
Jesus was an Egyptian King without a country to rule and was therefore seeking his own Kingdom (nothing other-worldly) on this earth. Jesus’ religion had nothing much to do with Christianity and Christianity does not really have much to do with Jesus’ religion. Christianity today and yesterday was out of character with who Jesus was.
Jesus was made into a god as Mr. Fortner states by the Catholic Church and it is the main reason why the Bible appears to contradict itself because Jesus’ biography according to one historian was destroyed and therefore never made it into the history books. Why? Maybe to take away the fact that he was very human as are any of us, but a light bearer indeed, also like many of us.
It had to do with politics of the day as religion was intertwined with Politics—it is only now that we have tried hard to separate the two. Christianity keeps the politics of Jesus’ day in its fabric, so much of its context is not relevant to the dispensation we are in today.
Jesus had 12 disciples—he was “crucified” at the age of 33—his religion was one in which symbolism played a great part, yet that little piece of important information has been lost to Christianity today. Jesus’ religion was similar if not equal to what is known today as the Freemason (no apologies), as there are too many parallels in Freemasonry which are more esoteric than literal.
I do not believe for one moment that because the Bible claims that Jesus performed miracles it means he really did so and that is the reason why his religion (the great religion of Egypt) was forgotten and a religion about Jesus was formed.
I will agree that Christianity was founded in Rome, by the Roman Catholics—but this included a constellation (no pun intended) of reasons why Christianity or Monotheism became popular.
Let’s not forget the massacres over Europe, North America, and other parts of the world which were done to nail Christianity down as the one “true” religion, and that is why it is so popular/dominant—it has nothing much to do with Jesus’ teachings—as he taught us to look inwards to ourselves for strength and to move mountains. Christianity
teaches to pray to Jesus and to God for our strengths and to give the glory to them for what we have done. Then to top it all off to blame Satan (whoever he is) for our faults instead of taking ownership of them. He taught us to be kind to one another, not to worship him.
C. Smith Cayman Islands
There were a few specifics in Frank Joseph’s “Lake Michigan’s Mastadon” (A.R. #76) that concerned me, only a couple of which were worthy of a letter. To buttress his real point about the age of the discovery, Joseph appears to wander off into other somewhat unrelated areas—with questionable assertions.
Joseph refers to the one-time existence of a land and/or ice bridge across the Bering Strait as “theoretical” and “alleged.” He does admit to changes in worldwide sea levels at the end of the last ice age. I felt the prehistoric existence of this bridge was accepted as factual by the scientific community. Whether or not it was the route of mass migration may still be open to some speculation.
A depiction of “a uniquely pointed or conical hat unlike anything attributable to Native American tribal people” is interesting. If Joseph considers the Northern Pacific Coast as Native American, then he may well be uninformed. Without seeing a depiction of the Sanilac images, I can’t say they are identical, but North Coast Indians (as they prefer to be called) still use carved and woven conical hats with their traditional regalia. Coincidentally, this area is not too far distant from the theoretical land bridge.
I would like to add a minor comment on the location of medicine wheels. I have seen one, near many small ones (presumably tent circles), petroglyphs, and buffalo jumps in western Saskatchewan (not near the Rockies).
After looking at the insert picture of the mastadon (mastodon?) and reading his “clarification” of the difference between mastodons and mammoths, I was more confused than illuminated—“mastodons with almost vertical tusks more than 15 feet long” (the picture shows curved tusks barely the height of a mastodon “6 ft at shoulder”). At least it encouraged me to head off to other academic sources to sort it all out.
Neil Baragar Hope, B.C.
I found “Pseudo Skeptics Beware” by Winstonis WU (A.R. #77) to be very interesting, mainly because, up until I read the article I would have never considered myself a skeptic, a “believer” maybe, or an “advocate,” yes; never a “skeptic.”
I was under the impression that skeptics were the ones who would look at a magazine like A.R. and dismiss it as horse pucky. Apparently I was wrong, because while I am a strong advocate of alternative underground science and history, I try to stay away from choosing sides. I’m skeptical, you could say.
I read a quote once that went something like this; “A true intellectual believes nothing and pokes holes in other’s assumptions to reveal their ignorance.”
…By no means is this one man’s perspective my sole backing. It is actually quite arrogant: you will never find me toying with other people’s views—but for the most part, I think that it is accurate and it is something that I have always thought was true. Because, like it or not, most of the stuff discussed in A.R. is obviously naturally open for debate, and to preach one idea without leaving room for any other possibilities just doesn’t seem very wise, to say the least.
So, even though I don’t think that I ever would have thought it, I guess that I could consider myself a skeptic. Yet, clearly I would have it no other way. But do you know what’s funny? I can also be a pseudo skeptic at times. Self-admitted. And if you are scoffing right now, you are probably carrying the worst trait of one…a denial smile!
Nick Durkee Annandale, NJ
P.S. Did Mr. Wu really have to say, “They are cynics who have closed their mind to anything that doesn’t fit their worldview, dismissing all else as mis-perception, delusion, or fraud.”…and a slew of other character attacks (that could have been worded much differently). I thought such set-in-stone assumption is exactly what we’re trying to avoid here. Even he later says: “that is why it is good to hold both sides to account.”
…hmmm… yup, I’m skeptical.
I thought it was interesting to read in the AR article about Atlantis and Bimini (“Has Atlantis Finally Been Found at Bimini?” A.R. #77) that Edgar Cayce said in 1940: “Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it sixty-eight and sixty-nine; not so far away.” This has been interpreted to mean 1968 or 1969, but it occurred to me that 68 or 69 years after he said that in 1940 is 2008 or 2009, just when these ruins are being looked at properly. Coincidence?
Paul Holloway, London UK
Write to us at Letters to the Editor, Atlantis Rising, P.O. Box 441, Livingston, MT 59047 or email@example.com