Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

Don Jose el Tropical Tramp wrote

Oro, you posted -------- if/when it is found.

Oro, ? I have given you very clear directions to it and explained why and how it subsided in a day or so, and it's present status.



Well it seemed correct at the time sniff. I Need coffee

　
I must have missed your posts on it, for all I saw you post were some interesting maps/data on a site at the bottom of the Atlantic, that MAY be a huge volcanic caldera, and MAY have sunk from above sea level but has no evidence that it ever was above water.

　
Didn't we go round and round on another topic, some time ago, when I first read about you and Tayopa? You know me, after that episode, I want to see some compelling evidence before passing around the congratulations. Besides, I too have "found" Atlantis, and it is in another location from the deep sea site you have chosen. Or I should say I have found the place that Plato was describing in detail, which may not have been the original Atlantis island. Plato provides plenty of clues to identify this particular place, which he could not have known in such intimate detail if it were under 10,000 feet of water. Besides, remember what he wrote in Critias about the location of Atlantis:

　

. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

<from Critias by Plato>

　
That certainly sounds like the island was not deep under the sea at least in 350 BC. Are you contending that odd spot you pointed out with submarine mountains in a sort of ring, had only sunk just below the sea level by 350 BC, and then sank to 10,000 feet in the time since? How do you explain this? Or have you found some new evidence, perhaps some relic or a section of worked marble ruins dragged to the surface by nets etc that would bolster the case for your proposed caldera? Thanks in advance.

　
Not Peralta wrote;

Oro Amigo, I don't really know,but even if I did they would be in storage,but there should be some on the net.thanks.np

　
OK thanks anyway, as you know I have an interest in all evidence of ancient visitors to America from the Old World, had hoped that perhaps you might have a photo or two of one of these trident symbols. I can hunt up photos online. The trident is also associated with Satan and other aspects like triple sin, three-fold hostility etc. A trident with dolphins would be referring to Syracuse the Greek state, although Poseidon is also depicted with dolphins so that is also arguable.

So amigos as Pandorasbox asked - what should we expect to see and find in Atlantis, when found and brought to light? I know that some will not allow that it could be Atlantis, without the impressive city with rings of land and canals, statues, orichalcum plated walls etc. IMHO these details are embellishments, just as Plutarch accused, so that the real ice-age civilization has been adulterated with Bronze age Minoans (among others) so that it is an unrecognizable, impossible place. Did the Atlanteans have a writing system? What language were they speaking? Thanks in advance,

Oroblanco
　

　
　

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Hmm - it seems there are indeed "trident" petroglyphs in the southwest, BUT they may well be cactus and not intended to be tridents. Like this example:


<borrowed from http://www.theorionzone.com/images/trident.jpg under Fair Use provisions>

I would not call that a trident, but some people may interpret it that way?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hola oro. Atlantis was on the rim of an enormus Caldera, situated by the junction of the three plates, hence the subsidiece. The southern edge of the Atantean empire was the Azores, which still has an occaisional subsidience. To add to the depth there has been a gradual increase in the sea level. The area off the coast of Spain has recently been shown to have been above the level of the ocean.

 

[markmar]

Hmm - it seems there are indeed "trident" petroglyphs in the southwest, BUT they may well be cactus and not intended to be tridents. Like this example:
View attachment 1201770

<borrowed from http://www.theorionzone.com/images/trident.jpg under Fair Use provisions>

I would not call that a trident, but some people may interpret it that way?

Oro

Is a trident but with other meaning . The trident was the weapon of Poseidon and the three equal forks mean how he has equal powers in heavens , earth ( the middle fork ) and the underworld . ( see at Symbol of the Trident | GnosticWarrior.com
In this petroglyph the trident is between two spirals ( or other form of ancient swastika ) . The spiral from the right are a positive power because emits - like the sun ( always we look from the centre of the spiral ) and the spiral from the left is a negative power because absorbs - like the black hole of the universe .
Now , the trident is closer to the negative power , and this sign would be interpreted like :

" The negative ( bad ) powers which rule only on the earth ( shown by the bigger middle fork ) , absorb energy ( power ) from the positive ( good ) power which is bigger but dispersed ( the little spiral close to the right spiral ) .

 

[Oroblanco]

　
　
　
Real de Tayopa wrote

hola oro. Atlantis was on the rim of an enormus Caldera, situated by the junction of the three plates, hence the subsidiece. The southern edge of the Atantean empire was the Azores, which still has an occaisional subsidience. To add to the depth there has been a gradual increase in the sea level. The area off the coast of Spain has recently been shown to have been above the level of the ocean.

　
Hmm there are several issues with that. First, where does Plato mention that Atlantis is made up of volcanoes? Isn't that an assumption based on his description? Many mountain chains and many islands are not made of volcanoes after all.

　
While I agree that theAzores were almost certainly a part of the Atlantean empire, and that they do have catastrophic island collapses periodically, causing gigantic tsunamis that have even re-shaped the islands in the Caribbean, the depth of the oceans has increased only around 150 feet since the time of Atlantis. The depth at your site runs to over 10,000 feet deep! Plato mentioned that the site of Atlantis had muddy shoals in his time, making it dangerous to ships. That indicates very shallow seas where the island once was. I don't think the 150 foot sea rise can account for the extreme (nearly two miles) deep water in the center of that caldera (if it is a caldera, and I presume it is) at our time. How did it go from being so shallow in 350 BC, to 10,000 feet deep in 2015 AD? That is only some 2365 years to account for at least 9900 feet of depth! Plus it would also require that the main island only sank to very shallow depths in the time between 10,000 BC and 350 BC, or over 9000 years time span, yet in far less time sank much faster and farther. What evidence is there that this is what has happened?

　
The fact that the coast of Spain was farther out, does not really indicate anything to support that site as Atlantis, for much of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland were also above sea level circa 10,000 BC. In fact a number of islands existed that do not exist today, which matches what Plato described. This point actually supports his being truthful, for our skeptics, because how could he have known there were such islands existing some 9000+ years before his own time? But due to the sea levels being lower by some 150 feet, many coastal areas have receded and become flooded, so the coastal areas of Spain do not prove or disprove any particular place as being Atlantis any more than the Grand Banks having been above water at the same time.

So I must remain unconvinced that your proposed site of Atlantis. It is an interesting site for sure, but so far I have not seen anything to prove that it was ever above the level of the sea. It does appear to be volcanic, although really Plato makes no reference to any volcanoes associated with Atlantis so that does not help the case. I realize that you are quite convinced that it is the correct site, but to me there are still a number of issues with it -not saying you are all wrong, just that the case is not strong enough for me yet. Thank you for explaining though.

　
Markmar wrote

Oro

Is a trident but with other meaning . The trident was the weapon of Poseidon and the tree equal forks mean how he has equal powers in heavens , earth ( the middle fork ) and the underworld . ( see at

Symbol of the Trident | GnosticWarrior.com
In this petroglyph the trident is between two spirals ( or other form of ancient swastika ) . The spiral from the right are a positive power because emits - like the sun ( always we look from the centre of the spiral ) and the spiral from the left is a negative power because absorbs - like the black hole of the universe .
Now , the trident is closer to the negative power , and this sign would be interpreted like :

" The negative ( bad ) powers which rule only on the earth ( shown by the bigger middle fork ) , absorb energy ( power ) from the positive ( good ) power which is bigger but dispersed ( the little spiral close to the right spiral )

　
That is an interesting interpretation, thank you for sharing it. However, how can we be certain that interpretation is what the maker intended for it to mean? Were they even aware of power and energy, to be attempting to portray it in symbols?

　
Secondly, if that is indeed a trident, then what sort of symbols were used to indicate a cactus? How can we tell the difference between a cactus symbol and a trident, if their trident looks like this, which so closely resembles a cactus drawing? Thank you in advance,
　
Oroblanco

　
Please do continue, need more coffee!

　

　
　
　

 

[Oroblanco]

PS forgot to add this:

Real de Tayopa - remember, Plato said that where Atlantis was, were muddy shoals dangerous to ships in his time. The sea level rise is not that much since Plato's time (~350 BC) and remember that the sea levels hardly changed at all for some 1700 years up to 1900 AD. The only estimates on the sea level rise since 350 BC that I could find were from 10 to 15 feet maximum. This can not account for the extreme depth at your proposed Atlantis location.

Marius, would you also call this a trident as well:

The image in question is in the lower right quarter of the photo.
<borrowed from : Native American Petroglyphs Of Heron Like Birds And Cactus, V Bar V Stock Photo, Picture And Royalty Free Image. Pic. 7909932 under Fair Use provisions, and not for profit>

Thank you in advance;

 

[markmar]

Oro

Well , the second petroglyph from it's proportion and asymmetrical " hands " looks like a cactus . After all is a scene from Nature .
If the first petroglyph may be a cactus , then what scene shows ? A cactus between a Φ4 and Φ5 cyclones ?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

ORO, Atlantis was on the 'rim' of the caldera, forming many Islands in a circular shape, The actual Atlantis itself.

As for the muddy region, it still exists in the shallows off of the coast of Spain, you might think of Spain being a pivot point with Atlantis being the other extreme.It drug Spains' land under the sea forming the 'muddy shoals' of Plato.

Along the way it sheered off from the lands of Spain, and so didn't drag it down with her.

Incidentally, the shallows of Spain also played host to the Aztecs ( lost tribe of Israel ) the place of the herons,the whte sands,etc. etc. in their migration from Jeruslem.

 

[cactusjumper]

ORO, Atlantis was on the 'rim' of the caldera, forming many Islands in a circular shape, The actual Atlantis itself.

As for the muddy region, it still exists in the shallows off of the coast of Spain, you might think of Spain being a pivot point with Atlantis being the other extreme.It drug Spains' land under the sea forming the 'muddy shoals' of Plato.

Along the way it sheered off from the lands of Spain, and so didn't drag it down with her.

Incidentally, the shallows of Spain also played host to the Aztecs ( lost tribe of Israel ) the place of the herons,the whte sands,etc. etc. in their migration from Jeruslem.

Don Jose,

Aztecs........Great Blue Heron......White Sands, New Mexico. The Aztec Homeland. I don't believe the Aztec are the lost tribe of Israel. Show us the DNA.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Joe did once, will check my notes.

 

[Oroblanco]

Oro

Well , the second petroglyph from it's proportion and asymmetrical " hands " looks like a cactus . After all is a scene from Nature .
If the first petroglyph may be a cactus , then what scene shows ? A cactus between a Φ4 and Φ5 cyclones ?

I would say the scene with two spirals could very easily be a cactus between two burning Suns. As in, two days, or two days travel, across a desert hence the cactus.



Real de Tayopa wrote

ORO, Atlantis was on the 'rim' of the caldera, forming many Islands in a circular shape, The actual Atlantis itself.

As for the muddy region, it still exists in the shallows off of the coast of Spain, you might think of Spain being a pivot point with Atlantis being the other extreme.It drug Spains' land under the sea forming the 'muddy shoals' of Plato.

Along the way it sheered off from the lands of Spain, and so didn't drag it down with her.

Incidentally, the shallows of Spain also played host to the Aztecs ( lost tribe of Israel ) the place of the herons,the whte sands,etc. etc. in their migration from Jeruslem.

Addressing the last part first, would you not agree that proposing the Aztecs as a lost tribe of Israel, is largely speculation? Is there any evidence of any proto-Aztec/lost Israeli tribe found in those shallows off the coast of Spain? Would there not be some hint of their existence, among the historians of ancient times, like Herodotus or Strabo, although his specialty was geography, he tended to include some info on the peoples of each location. I don't disagree with you 100% on this idea, even Montezuma himself stated that he knew that his people were not originally from Mexico and the Aztecs were certainly alarmed at the arrival of white, bearded strangers from across the sea coincidentally with prophecy, BUT what links them to a lost tribe of Israel?

Now to your reply on those issues, if that ring of submarine mountains were above sea level (which we are still waiting to see evidence that they ever were) would they not form TOO MANY islands? One of the other ancient sources on Atlantis (not Plato, think it was Theopompous? Correction welcome) stated that Atlantis was actually a group of TEN islands, and one was quite large. The mountain chain you have proposed, would make over two dozen islands at least, or if the sea level were very different (say 10,000 feet less deep) it would be one huge island with a ring of mountains around the edges.

One could make the same kind of argument for the Grand Banks as you have for the shallows off Spain. In fact it is proven that the Grand Banks were once above sea level, even had herds of mammoths grazing among the forests and swamps.

So I have to say that I remain respectfully in disagreement on your proposed location for Atlantis. I just don't see enough evidence to support it, especially no evidence that it has subsided, nor that it was ever above sea level. There have been massive subsidences, although the skeptics love to claim that never happens, and this describes what happened to Atlantis very well - "earthquakes and floods". No mention of any volcanoes, not even as the mountains. Many islands are indeed volcanic in origins, some are even still active, yet many other islands are not volcanic in origins. Mountains are formed by other means than volcanic upheavals and eruptions after all, so that detail is rather a red flag for me. If Atlantis were really a volcanic island - why then did not Plato, or Solon or Plutarch or Aelian or Diodorus or Theopompous etc ever mention that fact? They certainly were well aware of what volcanoes are, they are described in some detail in a number of ancient texts. When you pointed out that ring of submarine mountains, located on a well known active chain of volcanoes, this bothered me for there is NO mention of any volcanoes in Plato or any of the other ancient sources on Atlantis. Only modern authors have decided, with no good reason, that Atlantis had something to do with volcanoes. But otherwise, it is a good location, would fit that part about being "opposite" the straits of Herakles etc.

This brings up another issue - for when ancient authors would say "opposite" of a certain location, what exactly did they mean? For instance, the epic voyage of exploration and colonization of Hanno the Carthaginian, at a point along the African coast which they estimated to be around the same distance from the Pillars of Herakles as Carthage was from the same point, they founded the city of Kerne - and described it as "opposite" of Carthage! How could that be "opposite", when the best guess for the location of Kerne is the Canary islands, not on the same latitude as Carthage at all, not even in an opposite direction (as with say east -west or north-south) it is not a cardinal direction point away from the home city. Yet this is what it says, "opposite" from Carthage and about the same distance from the Pillars. So if this is a clue, then when an ancient author, Greek in this case (Polybius, translating from the Punic) just as Plato was Greek, is saying a place was "opposite" another place, clearly it did not have the same meaning that we English speakers of twenty plus centuries later think of by that term. If we can judge from what Polybius wrote concerning the voyage of Hanno, then when Plato wrote about Atlantis being "opposite" the Pillars of Herakles, it could be off in quite a different tangent or direction than straight away from it, as your location seems to be. In fact by that statement, the distance MAY be speculated to be similar to the distance from the strait to Greece, but away from the strait in the opposite sort of direction, opposite meaning about any angle for the ancients.

There is evidence that civilizations did exist at the end of the last Ice Age - and in plain sight too. Those enigmatic "wheel ruts" on the Maltese islands for instance:

- run from dry land, right down under the sea. Our historians don't like to talk about these bits of evidence because it proves that SOME people were living in a civilized state, too far back in time for the 'accepted' history. The wheel was not supposed to be invented circa 10,000 years BC, much less the domesticated draft animals like oxen, asses, mules or horses to pull things on wheels. Gobekli Tepe proves that not all people were living in caves hunting bears and mammoths at the end of the Ice Age. Rock art found in the Sahara depict people herding cattle - when the Sahara was a wet, grassy land dotted with lakes, and cattle were not yet supposedly domesticated.

Other ancient cities also date to around the same time period, like Jericho and even Damascus. Recent discoveries in the jungle-choked Amazon basin proves that a vast civilization existed there too, with some sites dating to approximately the same time period. I would say that it is clear that mankind in 10,000 BC, was coming out of the stone age, beginning to farm and raise livestock in a number of places around the world, not just in Atlantis, and the disastrous end of the Ice Age complete with massive flooding around the world (partly due to the meltwater pulses, perhaps also a period of extreme rains etc just as we find in the flood of Noah and Gilgamesh etc) destroyed most of the civilized centers of the world, with the survivors being the people who lived still in a primitive state - just as we find in Plato's tale, with the Egyptian priest telling the story to Solon.

Now Don Jose, if you had perhaps a photo of some ancient wheel ruts, or ruins on the sea floor in that location you have proposed, we would have a whole different animal to debate. Do you know of any finds like that, in your proposed area? Thank you in advance.
Oroblanco


Please do continue - need more coffee!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro, you drive a hard bargain. As for volcanic orign of Atlantis, they discussed having hot water, etc.

It is comon knowledge that the continental plates are constantly in movement, over riding / under riding, It is a region of constant movement, very active.

Atlantis was situated at the junction of three of them, The North American, the Asian, and the African.

The rim of the Caldera is composed of various irregular Islands, in agreement with all versions.

It is an active movement zone. According to Plato it disappeared i a day and night, indicating a massive subsidience.

One, or more, plates could have been overiding the other (s) then finally when the forces became too great, it slipped, causing The Atlantis reaction. Atlantis was on the underlying plate and sank. No Volcanism, just plain pressure..

In the process it dragged part of Spain's coast line under water creating the famous shallows,before it sheared off and continued it's travel downward alone.

I have no doubt that Atlantis had colonies on the mainland, but since it was simialr to the general development stage of the rest of the ancient world, we just do not recognize them. They blend into the background civilizations.They just wern't that different, despite the present tendency to equate them with having tremendous powers.

Sorry Oro, I don't have any photographss presently of Atlantis.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I would say the scene with two spirals could very easily be a cactus between two burning Suns. As in, two days, or two days travel, across a desert hence the cactus.



Real de Tayopa wrote


Addressing the last part first, would you not agree that proposing the Aztecs as a lost tribe of Israel, is largely speculation? Is there any evidence of any proto-Aztec/lost Israeli tribe found in those shallows off the coast of Spain? Would there not be some hint of their existence, among the historians of ancient times, like Herodotus or Strabo, although his specialty was geography, he tended to include some info on the peoples of each location. I don't disagree with you 100% on this idea, even Montezuma himself stated that he knew that his people were not originally from Mexico and the Aztecs were certainly alarmed at the arrival of white, bearded strangers from across the sea coincidentally with prophecy, BUT what links them to a lost tribe of Israel?

Now to your reply on those issues, if that ring of submarine mountains were above sea level (which we are still waiting to see evidence that they ever were) would they not form TOO MANY islands? One of the other ancient sources on Atlantis (not Plato, think it was Theopompous? Correction welcome) stated that Atlantis was actually a group of TEN islands, and one was quite large. The mountain chain you have proposed, would make over two dozen islands at least, or if the sea level were very different (say 10,000 feet less deep) it would be one huge island with a ring of mountains around the edges.

One could make the same kind of argument for the Grand Banks as you have for the shallows off Spain. In fact it is proven that the Grand Banks were once above sea level, even had herds of mammoths grazing among the forests and swamps.

So I have to say that I remain respectfully in disagreement on your proposed location for Atlantis. I just don't see enough evidence to support it, especially no evidence that it has subsided, nor that it was ever above sea level. There have been massive subsidences, although the skeptics love to claim that never happens, and this describes what happened to Atlantis very well - "earthquakes and floods". No mention of any volcanoes, not even as the mountains. Many islands are indeed volcanic in origins, some are even still active, yet many other islands are not volcanic in origins. Mountains are formed by other means than volcanic upheavals and eruptions after all, so that detail is rather a red flag for me. If Atlantis were really a volcanic island - why then did not Plato, or Solon or Plutarch or Aelian or Diodorus or Theopompous etc ever mention that fact? They certainly were well aware of what volcanoes are, they are described in some detail in a number of ancient texts. When you pointed out that ring of submarine mountains, located on a well known active chain of volcanoes, this bothered me for there is NO mention of any volcanoes in Plato or any of the other ancient sources on Atlantis. Only modern authors have decided, with no good reason, that Atlantis had something to do with volcanoes. But otherwise, it is a good location, would fit that part about being "opposite" the straits of Herakles etc.

This brings up another issue - for when ancient authors would say "opposite" of a certain location, what exactly did they mean? For instance, the epic voyage of exploration and colonization of Hanno the Carthaginian, at a point along the African coast which they estimated to be around the same distance from the Pillars of Herakles as Carthage was from the same point, they founded the city of Kerne - and described it as "opposite" of Carthage! How could that be "opposite", when the best guess for the location of Kerne is the Canary islands, not on the same latitude as Carthage at all, not even in an opposite direction (as with say east -west or north-south) it is not a cardinal direction point away from the home city. Yet this is what it says, "opposite" from Carthage and about the same distance from the Pillars. So if this is a clue, then when an ancient author, Greek in this case (Polybius, translating from the Punic) just as Plato was Greek, is saying a place was "opposite" another place, clearly it did not have the same meaning that we English speakers of twenty plus centuries later think of by that term. If we can judge from what Polybius wrote concerning the voyage of Hanno, then when Plato wrote about Atlantis being "opposite" the Pillars of Herakles, it could be off in quite a different tangent or direction than straight away from it, as your location seems to be. In fact by that statement, the distance MAY be speculated to be similar to the distance from the strait to Greece, but away from the strait in the opposite sort of direction, opposite meaning about any angle for the ancients.

There is evidence that civilizations did exist at the end of the last Ice Age - and in plain sight too. Those enigmatic "wheel ruts" on the Maltese islands for instance:
View attachment 1202206
- run from dry land, right down under the sea. Our historians don't like to talk about these bits of evidence because it proves that SOME people were living in a civilized state, too far back in time for the 'accepted' history. The wheel was not supposed to be invented circa 10,000 years BC, much less the domesticated draft animals like oxen, asses, mules or horses to pull things on wheels. Gobekli Tepe proves that not all people were living in caves hunting bears and mammoths at the end of the Ice Age. Rock art found in the Sahara depict people herding cattle - when the Sahara was a wet, grassy land dotted with lakes, and cattle were not yet supposedly domesticated.
View attachment 1202207
Other ancient cities also date to around the same time period, like Jericho and even Damascus. Recent discoveries in the jungle-choked Amazon basin proves that a vast civilization existed there too, with some sites dating to approximately the same time period. I would say that it is clear that mankind in 10,000 BC, was coming out of the stone age, beginning to farm and raise livestock in a number of places around the world, not just in Atlantis, and the disastrous end of the Ice Age complete with massive flooding around the world (partly due to the meltwater pulses, perhaps also a period of extreme rains etc just as we find in the flood of Noah and Gilgamesh etc) destroyed most of the civilized centers of the world, with the survivors being the people who lived still in a primitive state - just as we find in Plato's tale, with the Egyptian priest telling the story to Solon.

Now Don Jose, if you had perhaps a photo of some ancient wheel ruts, or ruins on the sea floor in that location you have proposed, we would have a whole different animal to debate. Do you know of any finds like that, in your proposed area? Thank you in advance.
Oroblanco


Please do continue - need more coffee!

Reloading... Java Zone,

 

[sdcfia]

Here's an interesting website discussing submerged ruins, with an emphasis on the Atlantis legends. He rejects the huge island idea in favor of a widespread Mediterranean empire, also extending into the Atlantic - with the capital city possibly south of Spain. Lots of other submerged city links elsewhere too.

Genesis Veracity Foundation

 

[Oroblanco]

Oro, you drive a hard bargain. As for volcanic orign of Atlantis, they discussed having hot water, etc.

It is comon knowledge that the continental plates are constantly in movement, over riding / under riding, It is a region of constant movement, very active.

Atlantis was situated at the junction of three of them, The North American, the Asian, and the African.

The rim of the Caldera is composed of various irregular Islands, in agreement with all versions.

It is an active movement zone. According to Plato it disappeared i a day and night, indicating a massive subsidience.

One, or more, plates could have been overiding the other (s) then finally when the forces became too great, it slipped, causing The Atlantis reaction. Atlantis was on the underlying plate and sank. No Volcanism, just plain pressure..

In the process it dragged part of Spain's coast line under water creating the famous shallows,before it sheared off and continued it's travel downward alone.

I have no doubt that Atlantis had colonies on the mainland, but since it was simialr to the general development stage of the rest of the ancient world, we just do not recognize them. They blend into the background civilizations.They just wern't that different, despite the present tendency to equate them with having tremendous powers.

Sorry Oro, I don't have any photographss presently of Atlantis.

Thank you for explaining. That region you propose for Atlantis is indeed an active area where the tectonic plates are in motion, however as I understand it, they are actually spreading apart, with part of the region moving toward the Americas, another part moving the opposite direction toward Europe and Africa, actually spreading the sea floor and moving the continents farther apart rather than one plate subducting beneath another as is occurring along the entire length of South America or along the western North African region south of Spain.

Hmm the warm water spring = volcanoes? While this is indeed a possible link to volcanoes in Atlantis, you do know that geothermal springs are not always linked to volcanoes. There are hot springs right in the area where I live now, which are heated due to the waters coming from very deep in the Earth, not because there is any volcano nearby. Also Atlantis had a cold water spring - would that be expected in a region of volcanism? On the other hand there are hot springs in Ireland, and Ireland is not known for volcanoes. I don't think we should make the leap that because Plato mentions a hot spring in Atlantis, that it must be an island of volcanoes or a huge volcanic caldera.

Also arguing against the idea of a volcanic caldera as Atlantis, we might note that many, perhaps most cases of mass land subsidences, are NOT associated with volcanoes. Much of the ancient city of Alexandria is today under water, and is not associated with any volcano near by. Some huge subsidences are directly related to loss of ground water resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater-related_subsidence

We might also note that at the end of the last Ice Age, the time period assigned by Plato to Atlantis destruction, the massive glaciers around the colder regions of the world were melting - fast. It is now understood that the melting of such gigantic glaciers, causes the land beneath (and near by) to rebound, rising with the release of the weight of the ice. Directly related to this rebounding uplift of some land areas, other land areas conversely sink, as the tectonic plates are in flex. The increased amount of waters in the seas may contribute to such land subsidences, with the weight of the melted ice thus shifted to a different area in the sea.

I am not trying to just shoot down your theory amigo, just that I must respectfully disagree that it is correct. It is entirely possible that some undersea activity, perhaps repairing an underwater cable system or something like that, may turn up very solid evidence supporting your location as the correct one for Atlantis. However there are other locations that are also candidates, including some known former islands that were above sea level circa 10,000 BC. In my opinion it is too much of a leap to then try to connect the lost tribes of Israel with the location.

Sdcfia thank you, had not seen that link before. It seems pretty certain that Plato did indeed incorporate some aspects of late Bronze Age civilizations that he must have known of, like the Minoan civilization for one example and the triremes as another. On the other hand, the common flood myths, virtually world-wide, do seem to indicate that a common memory existed of a cataclysmic end of the last Ice Age, plus we now know that not one but several different areas were in fact developing civilizations at that very time. When we consider that Plutarch accused Plato of embellishment, which I take to mean that there was a reality to Atlantis but that Plato had added things which did not belong to it (as he put it, as if it were a rich estate for some heir to inherit) I have to remain unconvinced that Atlantis was entirely a Bronze Age story. Sea levels have not risen all that much since the Bronze Age, but have risen quite a bit since 10,000 BC for example, and the multiple flood myths which existed prior to Plato telling his story point to an Ice Age culture - one that Plato decided to conflate with civilizations eight thousand years later.

Please do continue;
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Side issue, Atlantis related.

have been going over my notes for Joe, and found that some Interested person (scientist ) had proposed that an RH negative blood was evidence of Atlantean heritage (?) I have no idea where they found a genuine Atlantean for testing, but since I have RH neg, does this mean that I am an Atlantean reincarnaed ??

 

[Oroblanco]

Side issue, Atlantis related.

have been going over my notes for Joe, and found that some Interested person (scientist ) had proposed that a RH negative blood was evidence of Atlantean heritage (?) I have no idea where they found a genuine Atlantean for testing, but since I have RH neg, does this mean that I am an Atlantean reincarnated ??

Yes.

I think we are starting to do a lot of repeating, or at least I have been so will try to stop doing that. Real de Tayopa and I have been debating his proposed site of Atlantis since at least 2008 for instance.

There are submerged islands in the Atlantic like Spartel, which I believe <personal opinion> were a part of the Atlantean empire. The actual island of Atlantis was no continent, it was around 350 by 240 miles or so, and slightly less than 80,000 square miles. Any proposed location for Atlantis should not be markedly larger or smaller than that. There are islands of that size too, and the detailed description from Plato is due to the fact that the island he described in such detail was probably not actually sunk, although the great city probably was and is. Remember, one of the more obscure Greek explorers had recently returned from his voyage in the Atlantic about the same time that Plato was writing his story of Atlantis (Pytheas) so he had a possible source of information on the islands of the Atlantic that did not come from Egypt.

Like so many legends Atlantis has been a victim of mixing of stories, so that it is an impossible place. If you simply sort out the mixing of late Bronze Age features from the basic story, you may just find Atlantis.

Please do continue, and I will try to quit repeating so much stuff.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro de Tayopa, any posting that you decide on is welcome here my friend. (although I can't, for the life of me,understand how you can be soooo stubbornly wrong--- )

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Heh... I was born a Rh-neg. baby; YELLOW, JAUNDICED; spent 3 months in UVa Hospital; "bonded" with those young "Hottie" nurses, more than my own family. "Hot" for nurses, today... wife is NOT amused; she was a CNA, tho; HA! O Neg. Blood, now... VERY popular for blood donations... gotta "cut back"! "Re-incarnated Atlantean...? HA! THAT explains EVERYTHING!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Wecome "cuz"