Lost Cities!

[BlueTrain]

One of the early Tarzan movies, made as a serial, was about a lost city. It was titled Tarzan and the Green Goddess and also as The New Adventures of Tarzan. One of the titles was used for a regular length movie edited from the serial. One unusual feature was that it was directed by Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law, who also appeared in the movie. The plot involved a search for an idol (the Green Goddess) that contained the formula for a powerful explosive. There were multiple parties on the trail. It also featured lots of khaki, pith helmets, jungle scenery and all the other essential elements of adventure, even to include a tramp steamer. It was also unusual in that it was filmed on location in Guatemala in 1935. One character wears a pullover knit polo shirt, so it's okay for the rest of us to wear one, too, now that we know it's authentic adventure clothing.

In the movie they had to trek through thick jungle to reach the lost city, as well as ride on a riverboat and on canoes. In reality, there really was a destroyed Spanish colonial city, as they described it, but it was actually in the center of a contemporary Guatemalan city, which I think was Antiqua. It was destroyed in an earthquake. Bruce Bennett played Tarzan in the movie and he lived to be 100.

 

[Tiki Tom]

I was recently researching Andre Malraux, a French adventurer/writer from the golden era. This jumped out at me from his Wikipedia bio:

Searching for Lost Cities
On 22 February 1934, Malraux together with Édouard Corniglion-Molinier embarked on a much publicized expedition to find the lost capital of the Queen of Sheba mentioned in the Old Testament. Saudi Arabia and Yemen were both remote, dangerous places that few Westerners visited at the time, and what made the expedition especially dangerous was while Malraux was searching for the lost cities of Sheba, King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen, and the ensuring Saudi-Yemeni war greatly complicated Malraux's search. After several weeks of flying over the deserts in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Malraux returned to France to announce that ruins he found up in the mountains of Yemen were the capital of the Queen of Sheba. Through Malraux's claim is not generally accepted by archeologists, the expedition bolstered Malraux's fame and provided the material for several of his later essays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Malraux​

It just underlines the fact that the search for lost cities was a real thing in the 1930s that captured the public's imagination.

Fortunately, "Lost Cities" and "Lost Civilizations" are coming back into vogue (that's assuming they were ever out of style). The latest manifestation is in the form of revisionist archaeological theories that there was a major "advanced" civilization that was wiped out by a natural disaster about 12,000 years ago (around the end of the last ice age) and that traces of it are turning up all over the place. I've read Graham Hancock's book on the subject, "Magicians of the Gods", and find his research very interesting (I'm a geek!), although mainstream archaeologists consider him a complete quack, verging on a nut-case. (In response Hancock says "The foundations upon which history is based look increasingly suspect. Let's no longer shroud ourselves in the illusion that mainstream historians and archaeologists are invincible.") Whether he is Looney-tunes or a visionary of sorts, I'm all in favor of anything that keeps adventurers out in the field, in their safari jackets and fedoras.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/graham-hancock-interview/

https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg17/

 

[BlueTrain]

Once upon a time, short films called travelogues were in vogue and began appearing as soon as motion pictures become common, or even earlier. They continued being made, I believe, up into the 1950s. During those decades, people did not travel as much as they do now and most of the rest of the world and for that matter, the rest of the country, were unfamiliar places, if not always exotic. One film I have seen was about someone who started out from London in 1938 or 1939, traveling in a little caravan of cars, trucks and trailers. The party went all the way to India with, as they described it, war breaking out behind them. The same trip could, I suppose, be done today but it would perhaps be less exotic and more dangerous. One of the things that stuck with me from the film was seeing someone remove a blender from a cabinet in a house trailer and placing it on the counter.

Even more interesting and appealing to me were stories, usually as published in the National Geographic, about crossing some natural barrier, like driving through Panama in a Land-Rover or crossing the Sahara in a Citroën half-track or even wintering over in Antarctica. Jungle, desert, ice; that just about covers it. Pure armchair adventure.

 

[MikeKardec]

I've read Graham Hancock's book on the subject, "Magicians of the Gods", and find his research very interesting (I'm a geek!), although mainstream archaeologists consider him a complete quack, verging on a nut-case. (In response Hancock says "The foundations upon which history is based look increasingly suspect. Let's no longer shroud ourselves in the illusion that mainstream historians and archaeologists are invincible.")

Mainstream science is packed full of "experts" deathly afraid of upsetting the status quo. I friend of mine used to say that theories are rarely disproven or overturned until the originator and all his adherents (read students) die off. There's a chicken or the egg issue too. BECAUSE of people like Hancock, many experts have developed a overwhelming fear of being marginalized by their community if they were to admit to believing in or actively researching even slightly radical claims. Science has become much more conservative in the last 40 years.

On the "alternative history" side of things a lot of the problem is that the community of "alternative historians" is utterly drinking their own cool-aid. They all go around footnoting like crazy yet their citations tend to be limited to THEMSELVES or EACH OTHER. Utterly useless! The fundamental of Narcissism (beneath the more stereotypical grandiosity), is a vicious clinging to a made up identity. When someone's "identity," source of pride, and income, gets tied to something controversial they will defend it to the death ... just as the main stream guys will defend conventional knowledge. There are no open minds.

Accurate or not, writers like Hancock are popular and needed in our modern world because we desperately require a sense of wonder, of feeling that there is still something out there to discover and that we can personally relate to (hard to relate to a Quark!). There is no question in my mind that there are many mysteries attributable to early man still to be discovered ... including a good deal more global communication than typically credited. A civilization even as advanced as that of medieval Europe? Well, I sort of doubt it. A scattering of geniuses doing remarkable things? Much more likely. I'm always ready to dream, however!

 

[BlueTrain]

Sounds like why travelogues used to be popular. A sense of wonder with the world.

 

[HanauMan]

The problem with Graham Hancock is that as a teenager I read Erich von Daniken and believed every word in his books!

Once bitten twice shy, they say.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Even more interesting and appealing to me were stories, usually as published in the National Geographic, about crossing some natural barrier, like driving through Panama in a Land-Rover or crossing the Sahara in a Citroën half-track or even wintering over in Antarctica. Jungle, desert, ice; that just about covers it. Pure armchair adventure.

I was raised on National Geographic Magazine. My father had a subscription and I would devour every issue. Unfortunately the magazine (plus growing up around a bunch of WWII veterans) fed my naïve childhood belief that every boy was destined to grow up to lead a life of adventure. I haven't yet completely shaken it.

Accurate or not, writers like Hancock are popular and needed in our modern world because we desperately require a sense of wonder, of feeling that there is still something out there to discover and that we can personally relate to (hard to relate to a Quark!). There is no question in my mind that there are many mysteries attributable to early man still to be discovered ...

+1. Very much agree.

The problem with Graham Hancock is that as a teenager I read Erich von Daniken and believed every word in his books!

Once bitten twice shy, they say.

You and me both, brother!

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, of course boys are destined to grow up to be adventurers. They go on to fly airplanes and rockets, dive to the ocean floor, fight great battles, solve mysteries, make long treks with a pack, invent ingenious devices, drive trucks through winter snow storms and, sometimes, discover not only lost cities but entire civilizations unknown to us beneath the crust of the earth or hidden among the mountains of Antarctica where lush jungles flourish. That is what boys grow up to do. Girls, too. It is their destiny.

By the same token, acorns grow to be mighty oak trees. They cannot do otherwise. But the thing is, not all of them do. Same with boys and girls. Adventuring is a highly competitive activity. Hard on marriage. Our family has an adventurer, trained as a journalist. He was with the troops in the invasion of Iraq and has lived in exotic places most of his life, most recently in Kabul. He is a published author and even married someone from Serbia. But he is not good husband material and they divorced.

Anyway, the best cities never get lost in the first place.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Never mind Graham Hancock. This takes the hunt for lost cities to the next level:

https://www.space.com/37534-mars-civilization-evidence-congress-nasa.html

 

[Blowtorch]

So I finally saw the film "Lost City of Z" and it was awesome.

On a related and sad note
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...acted-tribe-killed-by-miners-reports-say.html

 

[Tiki Tom]

Here is a video for those of you who are really into alternative archaeology, evidence of a much older civilization, etc. It is Graham Hancock giving a slideshow lecture. Pretty much summarizes the contents of his last book. It’s a lot of fun. His basic premise is that there is abundant evidence of an advanced global civilization that existed around 12,000 years ago. Some of his images and interpretations are thrilling/jaw dropping and will unleash the excited little boy (or girl) in you. Like I said, it’s a lot of fun if you are a certain type of wonk. He is just serious enough to make you want to suspend disbelief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Diya00SEU

That said, I love this stuff but mainstream archaeology would beg to differ with his conclusions.

 

[BlueTrain]

Wasn't Chariots of the Gods all about that kind of stuff?

I think there is an urge in a lot of people to want to believe things like that, the same way many people are absolutely certain there are aliens from outer space visiting earth all the time. The basic theory supporting this is that if you don't know what a particular flying object is, which we logically refer to as unidentified, then it must be from outer space and most likely, Mars. Then, at the same time, they believe the federal government has captured some of them and they're being kept in, well, you know where. Everybody does.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Interesting article on the lost city of Irisagrig.
Gist: By the large number of tablets discovered that deal with Irisagrig, it is likely that the city has been found. The bad news: scientists have only vague clues as to where it might be. The tablets have all appeared on the black market and it appears that the city has been discovered by looters and no one else. One enterprising scientist tried to trace back a purchase to the original seller, but with no luck.

https://amp.livescience.com/62688-lost-city-of-irisagrig-ancient-tablets.html

 

[Blowtorch]

Reading "Lost City of the Monkey God", and getting together with the book club to discuss it early next month. Pretty jazzed to be reading it, and looking forward to discussing it...

 

[Just Jim]

Back in the early '80s, I was schlepping around Central America. We got caught in storm and ran into a cave. Lacking lights, we soon fell asleep. As we were leaving the next morning, I realized we weren't in a cave: we'd spent the night in a buried, partially-collapsed room.

I pointed this out to one of my friends, and he just shrugged his shoulders, saying that stuff like that is all over this part of the country. Could have been Maya, could have been Pipul or Olmec. It was fun to wonder about it through the morning, but I've never been back to look.

 

[MikeKardec]

It is Graham Hancock giving a slideshow lecture. Pretty much summarizes the contents of his last book. It’s a lot of fun. His basic premise is that there is abundant evidence of an advanced global civilization that existed around 12,000 years ago. Some of his images and interpretations are thrilling/jaw dropping and will unleash the excited little boy (or girl) in you. Like I said, it’s a lot of fun if you are a certain type of wonk. He is just serious enough to make you want to suspend disbelief.

Hancock is onto a lot of good stuff, his main problem is that he had to go through a phase of writing about a certain amount of more wacky/sensational material to get there. Kudos to him for sticking with it but the rest of us need to realize that people like him are valuable for the questions they raise. They don't have to be right all the time and just because one idea seems (or is) nutty, doesn't mean that they all are. Modern culture seems to insist that we all be 100% consistent and any variation be seen as life-long discredit.

 

[MikeKardec]

Thinking more about the "discredit" concept: I first experienced this in an argument long ago with a woman who was actually a dear friend of mine, an early 'studies studies' Phd. student from Berkley. I won't get into which 'studies' she studied because that would move this subject in a more political direction. It's important to identify the culture she was were coming from, however.

I made a comment about the constitution and it's sort of being the contract we have with our government and she burst out with, "Thomas Jefferson had slaves." Subject nullified, discredit established, no further argument (in her world) necessary. Let's leave aside her knowledge of the details of American history. The point here being the way the discredit was used ... as a way of abolishing argument or further thought. Our subject had absolutely NO relationship to the subject of slavery.

New to this tactic but quick on my feet, I got her to admit that she was an advocate of what was then a new concern, Global Warming. I suggested that for many years she had driven her mother's horrifically out of tune big block Ford LTD. Did that utterly discredit her on the climate or even other subjects where her general righteousness might come into question? She sputtered a bit but then cut loose with, "Maybe!" Interestingly, she chose not to be a hypocrite but disturbingly, she was so invested in the utility of discredit that she couldn't accept that people evolve, have complex lives, or may have some ideas that are better than others.

Since then I have seen this simplistic use of knee-jerk discredit permeate our culture. It has become the new version of branding something "evil" almost in a religious sense. And, most problematically, I've seen it invade the community of hard science ... a place where it probably existed MUCH longer than I am aware of and might possibly even be its source. Scientists notoriously feud over ideas, which are the currency of their world. Their immune system naturally rejects concepts that might lead to a breakthrough but also might lead to the dreaded DISCREDIT. Today this tendency has become so powerful that certain topics, especially those professed by lay people (no matter how intelligent) are simply OFF LIMITS. Lay people notice the lack of scientific open mindedness and explore those subjects leading the scientists to become horrified by the lack of science and therefore even more adverse to getting near the dangerous subject. It's a vicious circle of ignorance.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Spot on, Mike.
Not to sound like an unscientific crackpot, but last December no less than the New York Times ran an article about how —-after all the denials—- the Pentagon was indeed still running a secret investigation into UFOs. The article linked to camera footage from navy fighter aircraft showing high performance unidentified flying craft AND the article stated that the project had possession of strange metal alloys that had been recovered but could not be identified. I am not making any of this up. The reaction of the scientific community? Crickets. And then the usual boiler plate that interstellar travel is impossible due to the distances involved and the speed of light speed limit. I’ve seen no serious follow up regarding the supposed alloys or any of the rest. It’s simply not a topic that “real” scientists are willing to entertain.

So, if something as high profile as the NYTimes article can be poo-pooed, how can we be surprised if “lesser” subjects —-such as artifacts that don’t fit the accepted timeline—- are completely ignored because those who are asking the questions have been DISCREDITED for whatever reason.

Now I am sounding like a crackpot myself. I am not endorsing a preferred answer or solution to any of these questions. But I am disappointed by the way that topics have become tabu because people don’t want to put their upstanding scientific reputations at risk. To demand extraordinary evidence is one thing; to deny that we may not yet have all the pieces (and shoot the messenger) is another.