Could Atlantis Have Been A Mobile City?

originally posted by: Umvericomb92
My theory on Atlantis .

Your theory is apparently based on your imagination and a complete lack of any credible research.
Plato wasn't a historian, he was a philosopher and clearly if you'd actually read Critias or Timaeus, you would understand that he was using it as an allegory.

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
Some key details have led me to a theory of what happened to the lost city. In Plato's dialogues he says that the city was laid out in a circle, which struck him as odd. He stated in one of these dialogues that "I have never seen anything like what I saw in that city, the libraries had books and scrolls with knowledge of the galaxy, the technology was greater than that of anything that was readily available in Greece."

Can you source that please?

a reply to: Byrd

The Minoan Empire really fits the description. Especially if you look at the details from the Egyptian point of view (people from the sea indeed)

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Byrd

The Minoan Empire really fits the description. Especially if you look at the details from the Egyptian point of view (people from the sea indeed)

If you think Crete and the Minoans fit Plato's description, then you are unaware of what Plato's description says.

Harte

What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

He could use his diving gear no?

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Byrd

The Minoan Empire really fits the description. Especially if you look at the details from the Egyptian point of view (people from the sea indeed)

The Egyptians traded with the Minoan empire and may have hired their troops to help them during the New Kingdom. In addition, they were well-liked enough that one of Ramses II's palaces had a large section of wall done in Minoan style (with bull leapers.) They would have said "Minoan" if they meant Minoan. It's possible that they also supplied troops to Egypt (or at least ships) on several occasions.

The Hyksos ("Nine Bows") on the other hand were semi-nomadic tribes from Palestine and points east who had chariot technology but not shipbuilding technology. Current thinking (due to lack of destruction and population loss) was that Manetho's tale of invasion is overblown and what happened was immigrants coming in to trade and changing the culture of cities to Hyksos and obtaining land and property through purchase, causing the cities to become "un-Egyptian". Local rulers then would declare emancipation, which wouldn't please Egypt.

And, when you look at the artifacts in detail, it's clear that the Hyksos material is not derived from Minoan material. The two are very stylistically different and other details (such as the burials of the elite class) do not match Hyksos with Minoans. Crete did not develop chariot technology (it's not a good place for chariots or horses but the Hyksos were prominent users of both.

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

Neither Plato nor Socrates visited Atlantis.

Have you read the original source (in translation)? If not, you should.

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

Its not a theory, its a hypothesis, it becomes a theory when its been accepted as valid scientifically
Don't hold your breath

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

Neither Plato nor Socrates visited Atlantis.

Have you read the original source (in translation)? If not, you should.

Uhuh, well I found this old Greek photo of Atlantis on a credible site (crystalinks) and that is clearly Plato in the foreground

So unless you can provide photographic proof to the contrary, I think this evidence trumps your belief...

a reply to: AnAlien0men

Something like this maybe but on more of a grandesque scale?




The question begs through where did it sink or where did it go?

a reply to: Marduk

That's not a real photograph, cameras weren't invented back then!

a reply to: intergalactic fire
Didn't you know the Atlanteans had time-travelling technology?

Harte

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Marduk

That's not a real photograph, cameras weren't invented back then!

Oh so they had nuclear weapons back then, but you won't credit them with cameras
Obviously, you have never read the works of David Hatcher Childress and Zechariah Sitchin or you would have known that

Nah. Atlantis -- the city on the continent -- was located just about where the white arrow points here. Just south and east of where the Azores are now.

Good luck finding any trace of it though. It really got slammed when the whole plateau sunk.

a reply to: Marduk

Oh so they had nuclear weapons back then, but you won't credit them with cameras

So was it a digital or analog camera?

Obviously, you have never read the works of David Hatcher Childress and Zechariah Sitchin or you would have known that

Who??

a reply to: Harte

No, but tell me all about it.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

So was it a digital or analog camera?

Demonic, had a little imp inside who draws really fast, made by the Baelzekodak company

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Nah. Atlantis -- the city on the continent -- was located just about where the white arrow points here. Just south and east of where the Azores are now.

Good luck finding any trace of it though. It really got slammed when the whole plateau sunk.

Much smaller than Plato's description.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AnAlien0men
What my theory is suggesting is that the city is atop of the ship which lay beneath the sea, which would be why Plato didn't mention anything of thrusters, because he couldn't see them underwater.

Neither Plato nor Socrates visited Atlantis.

Have you read the original source (in translation)? If not, you should.

Uhuh, well I found this old Greek photo of Atlantis on a credible site (crystalinks) and that is clearly Plato in the foreground

So unless you can provide photographic proof to the contrary, I think this evidence trumps your belief...

Platonic selfies? Who knew?

originally posted by: Byrd
Much smaller than Plato's description.

Yeah, but it fits so many of the other things in his description, like the tops of the mountains that are now islands. Naturally, using old sources, he was going to get some things right and some things wrong. It's a helluva lot better match than Santorini, and it has the advantage of being a logical and practical place for the city to have existed. Along a river running from the mountains through a fairly large fertile plain. Within a large, protected bay, perfect for developing sailing skills. That's where I'd put it. You might even have those elephants (mammoths) transported from the northern regions to help you build it.