Atlantis

[markmar]

marticus

Keep in your mind how Athens has recorded history till 3200 BC . Nothing was found to prove the Athens exist before that time . Only Plato's story about Atlantis .

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real of Tayopa]

hmmm so many things can be roughly dated from the asssumed , calculated, passage on a Celestial body from a near collision that It is quite probable that Planet X exits and has effected Earth many times over the eons.

We find in one version of the bible, perhaps one of our oldest records, The lord created Earth, and was not pleased, so he destroyed it and created another --- is this a referene to a former near collsion ? If so, perhaps this explains so many OOP objects suggesting a superior civilization in the past.

Almost all events can be roughly traced to the re-appearance of Planet X, from the cause of ending the ice age down to the present, Most miracoles attributed to the Lord, including the subduction of Atlantis,and ending the ice age, can be roughly credited to this periodic appearance.

We simply do not have enough data yet to even confirm it's existance or it'speriodic cycles, so perhaps my postulaions aren't so far out after all?

Oro, perhaps Atlantis was simply ground up in the subduction. hence the remark on the sea of mud hindering sailing where before it was clean The sbduction may hwave been more violent because of the influence of Planet X., if so we may nnever know for sure, however that Calders still remains the most logical and most closely fitting the Greeks descriptions, which apparantly includes the Canaries..

 

[markmar]

Don Jose

Could be Planet X = Moon ?
On a wall in the ancient town of Tiwanaku , Bolivia , some symbols show how the Moon appeared at 12.000 BC .

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Markmar, As I understand it, it was part of the Earth, until it was wrested out by another Celestial body. -- our Planet X ?

 

[Oroblanco]

Don Jose', el Tropical Tramp wrote

hmmm so many things can be roughly dated from the asssumed , calculated, passage on a Celestial body from a near collision that It is quite probable that Planet X exits and has effected Earth many times over the eons.

We find in one version of the bible, perhaps one of our oldest records, The lord created Earth, and was not pleased, so he destroyed it and created another --- is this a referene to a former near collsion ? If so, perhaps this explains so many OOP objects suggesting a superior civilization in the past.

Almost all events can be roughly traced to the re-appearance of Planet X, from the cause of ending the ice age down to the present, Most miracoles attributed to the Lord, including the subduction of Atlantis,and ending the ice age, can be roughly credited to this periodic appearance.

We simply do not have enough data yet to even confirm it's existance or it'speriodic cycles, so perhaps my postulaions aren't so far out after all?

Oro, perhaps Atlantis was simply ground up in the subduction. hence the remark on the sea of mud hindering sailing where before it was clean The sbduction may hwave been more violent because of the influence of Planet X., if so we may nnever know for sure, however that Calders still remains the most logical and most closely fitting the Greeks descriptions, which apparantly includes the Canaries..

　
Interesting ideas, and even somewhat supported by Plato's own text. Specifically referring to the effect of some kind of planetary alignment, we find quote

Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us. When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children. In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

<from Timaeus, Plato>

Note that the Egyptian priest stated several rather striking points, including that alignments in the 'heavens" were the real cause of the global calamities, which would agree with what you proposed. Also take note that the Egyptians were aware taht several great floods had occurred, not only one, which is by the way in accordance with the geological record (meltwater pulses and sudden sea level rises). The great cities referred to as being "Athenian" and perhaps their allies, were literally "washed into the sea" by the rivers, which is what happens when rivers have flash floods after all.

　
Markmar wrote
<in reply to Marticus>

marticus
　
Keep in your mind how Athens has recorded history till 3200 BC . Nothing was found to prove the Athens exist before that time . Only Plato's story about Atlantis .

　
Perhaps no one has looked in the right places, to find the evidence of an Ice Age "Athenian" city-state? Plato (quoting the Egyptian priest) pointed this out, quote

Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced.

<from Critias, Plato>

What I get from this passage is that Plato was not speaking about the Athens that existed in his time, and may not have even been a Greek city/state at all, perhaps some ancestral tribe or culture that is distantly related to the Hellenes. In other words we ought not take these names to mean literally what it says. Also, remember from the earlier section quoted, that the Athens of the time of Atlantis, was literally washed into the sea due to rivers flooding in a big way.

　
Please do continue;
Oroblanco


　

 

[Real of Tayopa]

An excelent post as usual Oro. ----- genuine sock coffee.

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

"hence the remark on the sea of mud hindering sailing where before it was clean"

I believe the exact written quote reads:

"....but now lies sunk by earthquakes and has created a barrier of impassable mud which prevents those who are sailing out from here to the ocean beyond from proceeding further."

I take the above quote to mean that the "barrier of impassable mud" existed in Plato's time. Do you believe that is possible?

Take care,

Joe

 

[marticus]

Bare with me here. Ive had a thought. I would like you guys to have a look at your google maps and share your thoughts.
Now lets say 10 000yrs bc
Before the ice melted. Sea level would have been several hundred feet lower. Low lying water areas would be dry and connected to land.
Now plato mentions atlantis beyond the pillars of hercules. Or straight of gebralter.
So if we head east. We hit the americas.
Now lets look around the carribean. All those tropical islands would have been one large land mass at that time.

I know some talk about bimini. However i dont beleive that to be anything but natrual.

What you guys think.

Ill do some digging and see if i can pull up any references from solon

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Check out Solon, the man, too...

 

[markmar]

marticus

In one of my first posts on this thread , I wrote how I believed the Atlantis was in the Caribbean sea .

 

[marticus]

marticus

In one of my first posts on this thread , I wrote how I believed the Atlantis was in the Caribbean sea .

Ill go back and look through. Its a possible location. But i am feeling confident about we could be possibly looking at the americas. It makes more sense then another entire continent that disapeared

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Oroblanco]

Not trying to get picky (again) but Atlantis was never a continent. It was a large island with a vast empire that extended over a large area the size of a continent, but the island itself was not SO large. Critias gives us a way to calculate the actual size of the main island of Atlantis, probably not much larger than 300 miles by 200 miles. Judging by the numbers of men (chariots horses etc) the island could not have been any larger than Madagascar. This pretty well rules out the Americas as Atlantis, for they are FAR too large, plus early in Plato's description he includes a clear reference to what can only be the Americas. Quote

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.

<Timaeus, Plato ~ 350 BC>

When we remember that Plato lived in the Mediterranean, then that "other" which is a "real sea" can only be the vast Atlantic, and the "opposite continent" which surrounds the Atlantic, can only be the Americas. And in reality they DO bound the whole western side of the Atlantic, which means that Atlantis is in the Atlantic ocean, and is closer to Europe than to America for he refers to the "other islands" which you can travel to, to get across the ocean to America.

I take issue with this translation (and others) which have Plato saying that Atlantis is "larger" than Libya and Asia combined. For one, the Greeks of Plato's day thought Libya (Africa) was less than one fourth the size it really is, and Asia was much smaller than Europe. So the size he is referring to is NOT so large. Also the original Greek has the term "MEGOS" which when translated into English, more closely means "greater" than "larger". The British empire was greater than Russia, we could say, but not necessarily larger in actual square miles of land. IF we take Megos to mean "larger" then we must start calling Alexander the Great, Alexander the LARGE.

Anyway just thought we ought to clear up that Atlantis was an ISLAND and never a continent. The references to the muddy shallows, which MAY be traceable to Phoenician sailors whom would tell outlandish tales including sea monsters, whirlpools etc to try to keep any competition from sailing in their seas, may also be some clue as to exactly how deep below sea waters the city of Atlantis actually sank. For example, when the famous pirate capital city of Port Royal was devastated by a massive earthquake that sank over half of the city below the waters, it did not sink VERY deep, you can dive to see the ruins today. So Atlantis is more likely in shallow waters today than in deep sea. (This does not help your chosen site Real de Tayopa, sorry!) Also, we may have reference to the Atlantians having conquered some parts of the Americas, which is actually supported by Diodorus Siculus; in his histories he describes wars between the descendants of the Atlantians and the Amazons.

Please do continue;

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Marticus, more then once Atlantis was considred an 'Island' empire, it was centered around the rim of a giant Caldera off of the coast of spain, it also probably included the Canaries also from Oro's excellent inclusive post.on them..

The central Atlantic islands could be considered as possibily Atlantis except for the fact that they couldn't support a large population and were too far from the Med.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

If it wasn't deep it would have been discovered long ago ORO. The remains of Atlantis probably consisted of the mud which was a ground up Atlantis, Rememder, this was while the Antartic was probably in a temperate zone.

 

[DeepseekerADS]

I'll add something here that had surprised me.

In my life I'd always thought that reaching the New World took a month or more. And then I read somewhere that boats catching the right currents & winds could make the trip in less than a week.

And that would put the Caribbean in a readily negotiable distance.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

-re.*You are correct in your thinking deep seeker and Oro is 'not " sorry to disagree with me.

ncidentally, that series of Garret detectors were top of the line then and for many types of serches, itill holding it's own today/

 

[Oroblanco]

If it wasn't deep it would have been discovered long ago ORO. The remains of Atlantis probably consisted of the mud which was a ground up Atlantis, Rememder, this was while the Antartic was probably in a temperate zone.

If it WERE deeply sunk below the seas, why do we have (several) references to the sea being "too muddy" and too shallow for ships to pass? Most deepwater sailing ships of ancient times and particularly of Plato's time, did not have a particularly deep draft, I seem to recall reading (somewhere) that the largest ships, hauling giant stone blocks stolen from Egypt to Rome, only had a draft of something like eighteen feet and were able to literally sail up the Nile river a considerable distance for loading those stone blocks.

I am NOT saying that your site can not be Atlantis amigo, it IS POSSIBLE. However unless and until we have SOME kind of evidence that a massive sinking or subsidence resulted in the lands being sunk to a depth of some 10,000 feet (in places) how can we support that site as Atlantis?

I propose rather, that really only the main city of Atlantis actually subsided below sea level, not the entire island, and since most cities and developed areas in antiquity were quite close to the seas and rivers, were also naturally very much at risk if sea levels were to suddenly rise. As for example we can see in the Black Sea, which flooded and literally 'drowned' a huge area which is only now starting to be explored.

Now remember that very detailed description of Atlantis from Plato that we find in Critias. How could have had SUCH details, and which by the way also includes such anachronisms as chariots and triremes? Based on the historical record, these two military innovations only date to at most, 2000 BC (chariots) or 600 BC (triremes, and even this is stretching it a bit, if you interpret some of the carvings found in Phoenicia as triremes and not biremes or penteconters) or in other words thousands of years AFTER these devices were invented?

There IS some evidence that mankind was beginning to have agriculture, in various locations including areas not SO far from the empire of Atlantis; cattle herding, sheep, hogs, and even some horticulture (figs, primitive forms of wheat like einkorn, fruits like bananas, and in the Americas, corn, pineapples, potatoes) and even some evidence that man was beginning to domesticate horses, or at least asses. It is not impossible that a civilization COULD have proceeded to invent chariots or something that might be described as chariots by later generations, and even had cavalry. However I would propose that this legend of Atlantis is indeed based on factual events, that were exaggerated and/or EMBELLISHED by Plato just as Plutarch accused him of doing.

In support of this contention we can point to the various flood legends, which otherwise might very well be referring to a common, world-wide cataclysm that did destroy the Ice Age civilizations which were only beginning to emerge. An event such as is supported by the geological record (massive flooding, probably violent storms and earthquakes as the Earth was re-balancing itself due to the massive melting of ice from the poles) almost certainly WOULD be remembered by the peoples that were having to survive it. As the written word probably did not exist, or if it did, was lost due to this vast destruction, the events would have been preserved in verbal histories as has been done by primitive peoples up to this very day. Also, virtually all of the ancient sources OTHER than Plato, have none of his advanced features whatsoever, only that such large islands did exist and were some kind of militant empire.

I propose that Plato was describing an island that still existed in his own time; that was known from sea voyagers of his own day and recent history; one rumor that circulated shortly after Plato's time was that he had obtained two books from which he was composing his history of Atlantis (which he was including as a sort of morality lesson, probably not intended as a "history" like Herodotus or Xenophon) and that this very island was the true site of Atlantis; however the city itself was at that time (~around 350 BC) below water, and not deeply below water because of the references to "shallows" where it once stood. We have actual sites that support this kind of event, in Port Royal or Helike; in these cases the subsidences were enough to destroy the cities, but not sinking to 10,000 feet below sea level. The advanced plumbing he describes almost certainly had been 'borrowed' from Crete and the Minoan civilization which predated Plato by some eight centuries or so.

Also, I believe that we already have evidence of Atlantis in a number of places around the Atlantic and Mediterranean, but it is not recognized as such. Considering that we do not know exactly what embellishments Plato added to the real Atlantis, would we be able to recognize a site that had megaliths, and a stone tool culture as Atlantian in origin? Aelian mentioned a faraway people that MAY have been referring to Atlantians, whom were using a "black metal" which while capable of being made into extremely sharp instruments, was also extremely brittle; could this not be referring to tools and weapons made from obsidian, or in other words volcanic glass? (Which would also be literally a "stone age" tool)

And I must respectfully disagree with what Real de Tayopa posted, I really am sorry to be in disagreement over his chosen or proposed site of Atlantis. It would be a good fit, except for the extreme depths of the sea there which makes it quite unlikely.

Please do continue;

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Yer wrong, wrong, wrong, Oro that is atlantis, fulfills every description of Atlantis, now ground up, and explains logically why it met it's demise.

Im a single day and night glug glub gurgle

Seriously I can think of no other that begins to fulfil the description of Atlantis' end.t

 

[marticus]

Not trying to get picky (again) but Atlantis was never a continent. It was a large island with a vast empire that extended over a large area the size of a continent, but the island itself was not SO large. Critias gives us a way to calculate the actual size of the main island of Atlantis, probably not much larger than 300 miles by 200 miles. Judging by the numbers of men (chariots horses etc) the island could not have been any larger than Madagascar. This pretty well rules out the Americas as Atlantis, for they are FAR too large, plus early in Plato's description he includes a clear reference to what can only be the Americas. Quote

<Timaeus, Plato ~ 350 BC>

When we remember that Plato lived in the Mediterranean, then that "other" which is a "real sea" can only be the vast Atlantic, and the "opposite continent" which surrounds the Atlantic, can only be the Americas. And in reality they DO bound the whole western side of the Atlantic, which means that Atlantis is in the Atlantic ocean, and is closer to Europe than to America for he refers to the "other islands" which you can travel to, to get across the ocean to America.

I take issue with this translation (and others) which have Plato saying that Atlantis is "larger" than Libya and Asia combined. For one, the Greeks of Plato's day thought Libya (Africa) was less than one fourth the size it really is, and Asia was much smaller than Europe. So the size he is referring to is NOT so large. Also the original Greek has the term "MEGOS" which when translated into English, more closely means "greater" than "larger". The British empire was greater than Russia, we could say, but not necessarily larger in actual square miles of land. IF we take Megos to mean "larger" then we must start calling Alexander the Great, Alexander the LARGE.

Anyway just thought we ought to clear up that Atlantis was an ISLAND and never a continent. The references to the muddy shallows, which MAY be traceable to Phoenician sailors whom would tell outlandish tales including sea monsters, whirlpools etc to try to keep any competition from sailing in their seas, may also be some clue as to exactly how deep below sea waters the city of Atlantis actually sank. For example, when the famous pirate capital city of Port Royal was devastated by a massive earthquake that sank over half of the city below the waters, it did not sink VERY deep, you can dive to see the ruins today. So Atlantis is more likely in shallow waters today than in deep sea. (This does not help your chosen site Real de Tayopa, sorry!) Also, we may have reference to the Atlantians having conquered some parts of the Americas, which is actually supported by Diodorus Siculus; in his histories he describes wars between the descendants of the Atlantians and the Amazons.

Please do continue;

Thats was kinda the hence my idea towards the caribbean area 10000bc pre ice age melt. Still off the americas. Island or archepelego islands.
Not to far from the mainland for their resources. If that mass sank like we have at port royal. Could work with the mud and sunked idea

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[marticus]

World fault lines

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk