Ancient World Maps showing Lemuria, Atlantis and more

Well, unless you are a expert in ancient languages and can show me what the texts really say, your point is also unproven. I tend to side with those who ACTUALLY do that job. Your scenario, to me, is like taking a car that has broke down to a computer specialist to fix. Just because he has seen one before. Sorry, not biting.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Are you denying that the ancients constantly referred to gods and ascensions?

You mainstreamers are a stubborn bunch

No, I am saying that nobody is in a position to interpret what the ancients were saying as if they were technical terms, without evidence of same. There is a whole infrastructure that has to follow such an advancement, which does not exist.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
No, I am saying that nobody is in a position to interpret what the ancients were saying as if they were technical terms, without evidence of same. There is a whole infrastructure that has to follow such an advancement, which does not exist.

And yet science tells us "they are to be religiously interpreted...as visions, allegories, metaphors....but never to be taken literally"...without evidence of the same.


EDIT: This discussion is nonsensical, actually. The argument is always the same: "The mainstream is allowed to interpret it in a religious context, you are not allowed to interpret it in a technical context...because back then, technology didnt exist".

Please spell "Circular Argumentation".


[edit on 31-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Science interprets the ancients with the best evidence they have on hand, which is always changing. If you can prove them wrong, be my guest. Until then, I'll stick with science.

As to the other, it's not that technology didn't or couldn't exist back then, just that there is no evidence of the kinds of technology that you and others espouse. Therefore nothing to base your beliefs on, other than "Might have been, Could have been or What if?"

[edit on 31-1-2008 by cormac mac airt]

I understand how difficult it is to agree that ancient text should no longer be interpreted from a religious-frame-only. That tiny tweak would change the entire story....across the board. Pretty dangerous stuff.

"Oh, so youa are saying that when they wrote "he ascended to the Gods", they werent speaking in religious terms or allegorical terms, but in normal terms of simply flying upwards to meet other beings?"

Yep. Simple as that. Apply occams razor. Look for the simplest explanation and it ALL makes sense. The Bible, Sanskrit, Mythology, Apocryphal Scripts, etc. etc.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Science interprets the ancients with the best evidence they have on hand, which is always changing. If you can prove them wrong, be my guest. Until then, I'll stick with science.

This does not answer the original question of interpretation...religious vs. technical.

Just want to make a point -

If we all cook chocolate cake using different recipes and techniques but all our sugar had been swapped for salt without our knowledge, won't all our cakes taste terrible? Of course they will.

Now look at mainstream histories and the like. If we all research using similar histories and referring to text books are we not all going to come to the same basic conclusions? Yes we will.

This is, I believe, how thousands of scholars can come to similar conclusions but yet not necessarily reach the full truth. No conspiracy there, just a flow-on affect.

It has also been said a couple of times that if someone suddenly found real evidence of Atlantis or similar then they would have fame and fortune and so on. But lets think about that.

How do we know that some of the 'fringe' researchers aren't knocking on heavens door already and are speaking the real truth?

I'm sure a hardcore skeptic could find fault with almost anything - they are the gatekeepers of normality and would, I'm quite sure, do what must be done to discredit any solid truth that emerges.

My point, the alternative/real truth could already be out there but we choose not to acknowledge it.

Look at Mike Vreeland. In VERY short, this guy had evidence that 911 would happen 12 months before it did - what happened to him? Locked up, discredited and life ruined. Post 911 it was proven he was telling the truth - but too late.

Dunno if I'd wanna be the guy to discover Atlantis for real……


Also, I agree that this type of debate is not one as prone to evidence vs no evidence. There is evidence for both sides, but it depends which interpretation you chose to believe.


And its also a matter of whether you can trust 'official sources'. How many of us here trust the official story of 911 whole-heartedly? Probably not too many, we all have a degree of doubt there.

So why is it so unlikely that history is tampered with in similar ways?


TheWalkingFox,

Just wanted to say that I IN NO WAY think the white race is superior to others. No Way

When it comes to Atlantis, it is the white race which is most referred, sure. But if you look into the history of Mu then not too many people claim Lemuria/Mu to be white. Some authors do, but I find this hard to believe considering not many native cultures in the Pacific are white.


Cormac,

Just quickly, I believe that there are land masses which could easily account for Atlantis. Look off the west coast of Europe and you will see many landmasses underwater which could easily account for Atlantis. The Azores, Faroah Islands, Canary Islands even Iceland.

Im not sure about sticking to Plato's measurements so closely. He was just a man relaying a history, the numbers could be wrong or mis-translated for all we know, but the fact of what he was referring to doesn’t change.

And, when I talk at least, I use the term Lemuria loosely. As you will see in my map, I DO refer to lost continent in the Pacific as such, but I generally use the term Lemuria as a blanket term for the Pacific's lost continent/s.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by srsen]

I understand how difficult it is to agree that ancient text should no longer be interpreted from a religious-frame-only. That tiny tweak would change the entire story....across the board. Pretty dangerous stuff.

I believe your statement should read, in part: "ancient text should no longer be interpreted SOLELY from a religious-frame-only."

Problem is, neither of us is in any position to know, for certain, how they meant it to be interpreted. Would have helped if they had written literally what they meant, but they didn't.

"Oh, so youa are saying that when they wrote "he ascended to the Gods", they werent speaking in religious terms or allegorical terms, but in normal terms of simply flying upwards to meet other beings?"

Prior to the 1600's I'm sure it was nearly always interpreted in religious terms, currently it would depend on what context it was used. The statement itself could be taken at least three ways, off the top of my head.

1. He died and his spirit went to whatever version of heaven.
2. He flew in the sky like an angel with wings.
3. He hopped aboard a spaceship and went to (insert planet name here).

This does not answer the original question of interpretation...religious vs. technical.

Before the 1600's predominantly religious, since then open to interpretation just, in my opinion, not ridiculously so. I have my own take on many interpretations, just none that require extraterrestrial overlords and such.

hi srsen,

Just quickly, I believe that there are land masses which could easily account for Atlantis. Look off the west coast of Europe and you will see many landmasses underwater which could easily account for Atlantis. The Azores, Faroah Islands, Canary Islands even Iceland.

Increased size of islands or an island group I could see, especially since the water lever at the last glacial maximum was around 400 feet lower. However, a continent I don't as there is no, as in 0, continental crust in the Atlantic to account for such. IF Atlantis existed and IF it were outside the Straits of Gibraltar it probably wasn't much more than an island group. If it existed there then how would it fight a non-existant Athens and Egypt?

Im not sure about sticking to Plato's measurements so closely. He was just a man relaying a history, the numbers could be wrong or mis-translated for all we know, but the fact of what he was referring to doesn’t change.

Maybe not, but he was the only one to give a general idea of how large Atlantis supposedly was.

And, when I talk at least, I use the term Lemuria loosely. As you will see in my map, I DO refer to lost continent in the Pacific as such, but I generally use the term Lemuria as a blanket term for the Pacific's lost continent/s.

Unfortunately, many use the term literally. If it existed at all, by whatever name, its more likely to be a land bridge or most of one anyway than a true continent. There is an extremely large land bridge that went from South East Asia to Australia at one time.

In Plato's account, Atlantis' sole purpose is as a parable. Corrupt and decadent Atlantis goes to war with polished and moral and upstanding Athens, and gets its butt kicked. The moral of the story? Athens is the perfect state, capable of defeating an enemy with superior military power, simply by measure of Athenian fiber.

It came up during a debate on the concepts presented in "The Republic" after all

The denial of other than as accepted history here is incredible!
And it seems that the least knowledgable on the matter have the most to say.

The reason for the "cover up".

Simple really if you give it some thought.

The Roman Empire/God's own appointee, finds it in their best interests to keep their slaves believing that the world is only 6000 years old and that all humans descended from Adam and Eve.

Even the most cursory look at history willl tell you that the Catholic monks and armies destroyed every evidence of the history of every culture they put the sword to.

Not discussed here is the world wide cataclysm that changed the face of the Earth, sinking much of Atlantis & Lemuria, upheaving lands into mountains, & ripping the continents apart . Under the close scrutiny of logical reasoning the "advancing ice sheet" idea melts before you eyes.

Study Velikovsky.

Wake up little darlings.

Let me throw a very large wrench into this debate of accepted scientific norms :-)

The Big Bang

supposedly the entire universe started as a single entity that exploded outwards and is constantly growing outwards from this single source.

For anyone who can see what is going on this is blatantly false.

If it were true or even worthy of looking at there wouldnt be "Clumps" of areas out in space that we have been looking at for years, everything would be spread out evenly according to our laws of physics, furthermore, the farther out we look in any direction we see physical ages differ, we see newer events and planetary systems as well as older events and planetary systems.

But..... for some reason this is still the accepted norm by the "thinkers" of our age, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that these "thinkers" are only telling us what they're told to tell us and not what they are discovering every day? Obviously if everything unfolded from a single point EVERYTHING outside of the single point would start as a young event/planetary system and would progress in age the farther out it got :-)

reply to post by Sequoia

That doesnt make any sense. You dont need to know much about physics to realize that gravity will cause your "clumps" one way or another. Even in empty regions of space, the extreme gravity of black holes can cause an obvious lack of "evenly distributed" material. Knowing or calculating all factors affecting an atom is impossible, the universe is chaos at the same time its "simple" math.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by OhZone
Even the most cursory look at history willl tell you that the Catholic monks and armies destroyed every evidence of the history of every culture they put the sword to.

Not discussed here is the world wide cataclysm that changed the face of the Earth, sinking much of Atlantis & Lemuria, upheaving lands into mountains, & ripping the continents apart . Under the close scrutiny of logical reasoning the "advancing ice sheet" idea melts before you eyes.

Study Velikovsky.

Wake up little darlings.

OhZone, spot on.

SO many histories have been trashed and erased - it's a disgrace.

The history which is left today is only that which was allowed to survive. Any religious or cultural remnants of Atlantis and Mu have almost been completely wiped out. That which we read today, that which gets shot down by so many, is the only the leftovers of those cultures which we are able to pick from the bones of the past.

The Druids were one of the last great 'cultures' who stayed true to the ways of the past - is there any wonder the Romans were so intent on wiping them out and erasing any evidence of their 'culture'?

Part of my ancient map was based on the fact that what we see today as islands and continents are merely what is still above water from the great global flood.

If you look at a world map, instead of seeing 'floating landmasses' see stationary continents which only move as the earth grows in size and which look the way they do only because the coast line has settled where it has...



reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Once again, this is a matter of interpretation.

I have Timeus and Critias in my library at home and have read them more than once.

I personally think that Plato was referring to a real city which met its doom. I can see why some take it is a meaning otherwise but i think he was relaying the history of a real city.

"Big Bang"?
The scientists who came up with this must have had very small minds.
And they still have.
The seem to understand that the Universe is infinite.
While I am not for stifleling research, I think that searching for a "begining" is futile. They should just accept that we will never know and get on with something closer to home.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Increased size of islands or an island group I could see, especially since the water lever at the last glacial maximum was around 400 feet lower. However, a continent I don't as there is no, as in 0, continental crust in the Atlantic to account for such. IF Atlantis existed and IF it were outside the Straits of Gibraltar it probably wasn't much more than an island group. If it existed there then how would it fight a non-existant Athens and Egypt?

I agree, outside the Straits of Gilbraltar would have likely had a group of islands, which in my opinion, could still totally house an advanced civilization.

If you look at google earth at the co-ordinates (cant get my print screen working)
57 113'o6.52" N 17 17'48.88" W

you will see some kind of land mass of the coast of Ireland which i believe could easily have housed a major civilization in the past. Even the North Sea, Celtic Sea and English Channel would have all been above water at some stage. How many died when those areas submerged i wonder.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
There is an extremely large land bridge that went from South East Asia to Australia at one time.

For sure. It is actually shown on one or two of the ancient maps i linked up in the OP.

I tried to reflect my version of that exact land mass in my map. I mean, that could have been Mu for all anyone knows??...

[edit on 1-2-2008 by srsen]

[edit on 1-2-2008 by srsen]

Originally posted by srsen
How many died when those areas submerged i wonder.

Probably none. The waters didn't rise that quickly.

However, legends from around the British isles do suggest that a memory may exist of a tsunami that hit northern parts of the isles around 8,000 years ago

gsa.confex.com...

Now. How about the idea that an event like this was enshrined in folk memory and over the millennia gave rise to various stories and maybe even provided inspiration for Plato?

srsen,

I agree, outside the Straits of Gilbraltar would have likely had a group of islands, which in my opinion, could still totally house an advanced civilization.

Advanced by who's standards. There is currently nothing to show that anyone there was any more advanced than anyone else.

you will see some kind of land mass of the coast of Ireland which i believe could easily have housed a major civilization in the past. Even the North Sea, Celtic Sea and English Channel would have all been above water at some stage. How many died when those areas submerged i wonder.

Possible, but doubtful, as it is at least twice the depth necessary to have been above the surface during the last glacial maximum. Iceland would have already been attached to Europe at this point. I would tend to agree with Essan, there is no indication that the sea level rise happened faster than people could escape.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Advanced by who's standards. There is currently nothing to show that anyone there was any more advanced than anyone else.

Indeed, but most importantly about technology: The Atlanteans lost the war with the Greek.

Warfare and the technology that goes with it is like energy. It changes forms sure, but it never really disappear.

Did the Greeks just look upon this advanced technology littering the battlefields and say "nah, that crap aint for us!". The absence of ANYTHING the Greek could have taken from so called "advanced" Atlanteans is quite interesting. Hell if the 10,000+ year ago claim would be true, the Greeks would have DOMINATED the entire Med sea by the time of Plato.