Scientist believes Atlantis found...

Originally posted by Yazman
Mu and Lemuria are NOT the same thing. This is an error commonly made by many.

Mu is a continent that was supposed to have existed in the mid-to-southern Pacific ocean, which is sometimes used to explain the large archipelago of islands populated by many different peoples all with similar history and culture.

Lemuria is NOT the same as Mu, although many often make the mistake of thinking that. Lemuria is a continent which is supposed to have existed in the Indian ocean, starting at Madagascar, extending to Sri Lanka and also a few islands near Australia. The name "Lemuria" comes from the animals known as "Lemurs", and the idea of "Lemuria" was originally created a long time ago to explain the very strange distribution of Lemurs across places in the Indian Ocean. You see, there are Lemurs in Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and throughout the Indian Ocean, and it has not yet been explained why they exist across such a wide range of places, yet are so far apart from each other. The idea of Lemuria was created in order to explain this.

Lemuria and Mu are NOT the same thing.

Great post. Nice to see some people are well educated!

I also agree with you on your statements.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Byrd is right on the button, as usual for our resident attack academic.

Althou I do agree with some of the views of Byrd, he has been proven wrong in the past, he has one view, mostly the mainstream academic view, and there are dozens if not more scientists in different fields related to archeology that think otherwise, and have presented proof that there are cities underwater in the atlantic just as in the Mediterranean and all over the world. Some of these cities were sunk around the time that plato said Atlantis did.

Read the information in the links I posted if you want to find out whether or not there are cities that have been labeled as Atlantis by scientists.. So my statement was not wrong.

You can also do a google search and find more information on other places that have been labeled as Atlantis.

Atlantis is not in the Mediterranean. Atlantis wouldn't be a word if it weren't for two dialogues by Plato. The dialogues make it clear that Atlantis is outside the straight of gibralter, and if it existed was probably part of the submerged mountain range there.

There can be other lost cities, but if they aren't where plato said, then they aren't Atlantis.

The earth is thousands of years old, having an advance civilization such as atlantis is very possible in my opinion. 200 years ago, the US and Europe used horses and wooden ships to travel.

Since then, we have developed aircraft, spacecraft, cars, ships and even nuclear power. So the thought is possible.

But the "antlantis discoverys" are most likely either lost civilizations or just lost cities of current nations due to earth quakes and changes in the tides / water level.

But I am also excited to see what can be learned about this people and if anything cool is discovered there

Originally posted by Zuzubar
My theory was they were just as advanced as us. God then decided to restart sort of like restarting your computer. This has happened to the Mayans as well. Maybe the U.S will sink and technology will be restarted. If we found Ancient technology that would be so cool

My theory is that the people got greedy and war crazy. They started pre-emptively declaring war on those they believed were a threat and caused a calamity. Man destroyed man and he'll do it again. It's said that we learn that in the 11th hour of our iteration/life....EVERY TIME AROUND. How many times does mankind have to go around before we strike war from our midst. I guess never. But I can tell you one thing...this God guy doesn't run around restarting things for fun. God didn't do crap. Man did. If anything...he gave us just enougg rope. And we hang ourselves EVERY TIME.

Well, not exactly.

Atlantis, if it existed (and I believe it did) was probably the victim of war. That war was fought with spearmen, chariots, and slings though, and it didn't end the world.

You see, in the later part of the second millenium BC, there were many wars between Greek city-states and other related city-states. Troy, Ugarit (spelling?), Mycenea, and perhaps Atlantis were victims of this. These are generally remembered as attacks of "the sea people" who seem to have been rogue Greeks who appeared for a couple of centuries and vanished. The Egyptians had at least minor skirmishes with them as well.

The Atlantean king Gaderius (Eumeleus in Greek- spelling questionable) was credited with the founding of Gadir, later known as Gades or Cadiz, Spain. (also Tharshish or something like that to the Hebrews). The problem is that Gadir is a phoenecian word (meaning gates) and Gades was a colony of the Phoenecian city-state of Tyre.
This means that the Atlanteans are actually Phoenecians, and Atlantis is just a city that's been lost to history. (Ugarit wasn't found until the 18th or 19th century after the "sea people" destroyed it, so thats not an isolated incident.)

I don't see whats so hard to believe about Atlantis in this context. There was a city state we haven't found yet, there were a few wars, the city was destroyed, and a philosopher who I hear used a lot of drugs (plato) told grand stories with an extremely loose basis on that historical fact while arguing about the gods and ideal societies and such.

Really though that explanation gives some reason not to believe in Atlantis at all. The only link it leaves between Plato's account and reality is the origin of Gadir, which means that Atlantis would then be worth searching for since it would solve the mystery of where the Phoenecians came from. BUT the Phoenecians didn't start expanding until Troy fell, which may indicate that the phoenecians started somewhere on the Black sea. Gades was a colony of Tyre, and as long as that fact holds true (I see no reason it should ever be disproved, although I have never actually done any digging at either site I admit) then we have to assume that the Phoenecians did not come from outside the mediterranean, which means so much for Atlantis in every sense of Plato's description.

Considering that I'm an old believer in Atlantis, and still wonder if i'm missing something, this is a rather boring and disappointing conclusion, but I have found that when I look hard for evidence to support my arguements and make a ruthless effort to be right, I find myself drawn further and further from Plato's account, until I hardly support the existence of Atlantis at all. Unless I find new evidence to support it (seems unlikely, but you never know what I'll read tomorrow) I don't see how I could get to excited about the idea that Atlantis wiped itself out in a massive technological war (especially with nukes as some imply).


That all being said... I think it would be kinda cool if we found out that humanity had been around for a few dozen millenia and just keeps starting over again.

Just posted:

www.cnn.com...

Now there's more proof this this is aparently the lost city matching Plato's description.

An American researcher claimed Sunday to have discovered the remains of the legendary lost city of Atlantis on the bottom of the east Mediterranean Sea

a lot of people have claimed a lot of things in this world

this will definitely put a spotlight on the researcher, however. let's keep our fingers crossed as this one unfolds

I wouldn't write it down just yet.. It DOESN'T match SEVERAL of Plato's points.

For one, Plato described a continent of kingdoms (and a large one at that), with a capital city.
The city was located midway on the continent's longest side.
The city was surrounded by mountains, and alternating belts of land and sea.
There are many, many other points as well here that don't match and he'd have to find the red, white, and black stone there too.

All he's showing so far, is that the temple described by Plato, shares similarities with the one found. Well, the pyramids at Giza are pretty similar to each other too, as are ziggurauts of Central America. It's JUST as possible that the temple found was merely an outpost of Atlantis, and so had a similar temple there, etc.

This is the portion of Plato's dialogue, describing the temple....

The palaces in the interior of the citadel were constructed on this wise:-in the centre was a holy temple dedicated to Cleito and Poseidon, which remained inaccessible, and was surrounded by an enclosure of gold; this was the spot where the family of the ten princes first saw the light, and thither the people annually brought the fruits of the earth in their season from all the ten portions, to be an offering to each of the ten. Here was Poseidon's own temple which was a stadium in length, and half a stadium in width, and of a proportionate height, having a strange barbaric appearance. All the outside of the temple, with the exception of the pinnacles, they covered with silver, and the pinnacles with gold. In the interior of the temple the roof was of ivory, curiously wrought everywhere with gold and silver and orichalcum; and all the other parts, the walls and pillars and floor, they coated with orichalcum. In the temple they placed statues of gold: there was the god himself standing in a chariot-the charioteer of six winged horses-and of such a size that he touched the roof of the building with his head; around him there were a hundred Nereids riding on dolphins, for such was thought to be the number of them by the men of those days. There were also in the interior of the temple other images which had been dedicated by private persons. And around the temple on the outside were placed statues of gold of all the descendants of the ten kings and of their wives, and there were many other great offerings of kings and of private persons, coming both from the city itself and from the foreign cities over which they held sway. There was an altar too, which in size and workmanship corresponded to this magnificence, and the palaces, in like manner, answered to the greatness of the kingdom and the glory of the temple

First and foremost, Plato ALREADY ADMITS that he is changing the names, etc. to those of Greek gods, before going into the tale of Atlantis...

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

I'm assuming that the architect has found simply a submerged temple, that is a stade in length, 1/2 a stade in width, and a 1/2 stade tall. (this may well be the dimensions of the one in Athens also, I'd have to check) If this is the temple of Atlantis (or even a similar one) then he is about to be a wealthy man with all of the materials mentioned above. However, since Plato is actually speaking of a temple for foreign gods (barbaric in appearance) and assigning Hellenic names to them...it's my contention that he simply tried to impress upon his Greek audience that this was a grand temple to their gods, filled with gold statues, etc. and that some of this is actually embellishment on Plato's part for the sake of narrative. I believe that since the story of Solon didn't have the details, and only described the grandness of the temple, Plato sought to describe this in the mind's eye of his listeners using familiar gods and embellishing the details.

Then of course, he'd have to establish the large plain of Atlantis, the surrounding palaces and temples, etc.



[edit on 15-11-2004 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

Originally posted by Yazman
Mu and Lemuria are NOT the same thing. This is an error commonly made by many.

Mu is a continent that was supposed to have existed in the mid-to-southern Pacific ocean, which is sometimes used to explain the large archipelago of islands populated by many different peoples all with similar history and culture.

Lemuria is NOT the same as Mu, although many often make the mistake of thinking that. Lemuria is a continent which is supposed to have existed in the Indian ocean, starting at Madagascar, extending to Sri Lanka and also a few islands near Australia. The name "Lemuria" comes from the animals known as "Lemurs", and the idea of "Lemuria" was originally created a long time ago to explain the very strange distribution of Lemurs across places in the Indian Ocean. You see, there are Lemurs in Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and throughout the Indian Ocean, and it has not yet been explained why they exist across such a wide range of places, yet are so far apart from each other. The idea of Lemuria was created in order to explain this.

Lemuria and Mu are NOT the same thing.

Great post. Nice to see some people are well educated!

I also agree with you on your statements.

Interesting!

This might also tie into all the old writings referring to ancient Vimanas air travel
in that region. Supposedly these aircraft made regular trips to and from Atlantis.
www.crystalinks.com...

Originally posted by Gazrok
For one, Plato described a continent of kingdoms (and a large one at that), with a capital city.
The city was located midway on the continent's longest side.
The city was surrounded by mountains, and alternating belts of land and sea.
There are many, many other points as well here that don't match and he'd have to find the red, white, and black stone there too.

I've always thought that the Americas matched the description of Atlantis. The size of the land could perhaps be mistranslated, even to Plato. Mexico City, I would suggest, matches the location of the capital city. It was (is) a continent of kingdoms and has alternating belts of land and sea. The Mayan colours were red, yellow, and blue. The continents lie directly beyond the pillars of Hercules.

Problems: timeframe is off by ehhh 10,000 years and the Americas have not sunk or (arguably) been destroyed.

Zip

I've always thought that the Americas matched the description of Atlantis. The size of the land could perhaps be mistranslated, even to Plato. Mexico City, I would suggest, matches the location of the capital city. It was (is) a continent of kingdoms and has alternating belts of land and sea. The Mayan colours were red, yellow, and blue. The continents lie directly beyond the pillars of Hercules.

Problems: timeframe is off by ehhh 10,000 years and the Americas have not sunk or (arguably) been destroyed.

Actually, just South America.

Midway, along the continent's longest side, there is a rectangular plain of exactly the same size and shape as descrbed by Plato (the Altiplano in Bolivia). The site has alternating belts of sea and land, has red/white/black stone ruins, matches all of the size references by Plato, and is surrounded by mountains on all sides, it even has a trench to the sea, as well as a local legend of a city that was sunk. Orichalcum (or at least something akin to it, as it's definition is still debated) is also found in the Andes there.

The key thing here, is that Atlantis was both the name of the continent, AND the capital city, of the ten kingdoms of Atlantis, as stated by Plato. The city appears to be what sank, not the continent, and I contend that Plato and/or Solon lost something like that in the ages the tale had been handed down, or the story the Phoenicians put out to monopolize trade there. Don't forget those ancient Egyptian mummies which were stuffed with tobacco and cocoa...

I just have yet to see anything that even STARTS to come as close to Plato's words as this area, including Thera, Bimini, Ireland, whatever else one comes up with. None of them fit as well as the Altiplano.

Well, Gazrok, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I just got done reading a webpage about this and everything seems to be in place! This is extremely interesting.

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

Zip

You're welcome...

At first, I thought the idea was ludicrous, until actually pouring over Plato's words over and over again, and looking at the Altiplano. It simply fits almost TOO neatly. For me, it's all but a done deal.

I have nothing informative to add, except to say I never thought I'd see the day we discover one of the origins of civilization on Earth, and possibly the answer to all things. This is truly extraordinary and I am #ing proud to be alive in this moment and time!

I still think many are jumping the gun here...

The ONLY thing that would be apparent from satellite imaging, to correspond with Plato's description of the temple (not the city, just a temple) is size. With the size being a fairly standard Greek measurement (a stadium long, half a stadium wide and high), it seems far more likely that this is simply a Greek temple that was found.

The other details of the temple would only be verified by divers, and since I believe such details to be embellishment by Plato, my money's on that not being very conclusive either.

For any point that this "find" matches Plato's account, there are at least ten that don't...

Let me ask you all this. Assuming it turns out to be THE Atlantis, how, if in any way, would this discovery affect politics? This seems to be ripe with political intrigue.

Let me ask you all this. Assuming it turns out to be THE Atlantis, how, if in any way, would this discovery affect politics? This seems to be ripe with political intrigue.

IF it did...I can't really see the impact. What was the impact when they found Troy? Nada....nothing. The REAL intrigue (again IF, and that's a big IF, this were the real Atlantis), would be more in who claims salvage rights... Not to mention, if this is the Altantean temple (which I doubt), then according to Plato (whom I believe embellished this part), there is literally a small fortune in gold, silver, etc. down there....

No, we haven't. In fact, there is NO archaeological evidence for Atlantis anywhere. We had an old thread about ancient sources, and the sole ancient source is Plato. As far as scholars are able to determine, Atlantis is about as real as the Harry Potter school, Hogwarts.

They said the same thing about Homer's "Troy", but they found that too. Like Homer with Troy, I believe that Plato's account of Atlantis has some embellishments as well (notably in the description of the temple, to appeal to his audience of Greeks, and in the description of animals he knew would fascinate them), but is based on a true place. Check Zipdot's links, and you'll see there are smoking guns in the Altiplano. Ruins, matching geography, even an ancient story of a city destroyed by natural disaster.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Gazrok]

Muad�dib, I have reviewed my colleague Byrd�s posts carefully and do not see anything in there with which I disagree.

Her basic assumption is that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for the putative �lost city of Atlantis� (e.g. pottery, tools, etc.) and I think she�s right.

Most of your citations were, when examined, not evidence at all, but merely news stories saying that such and so said that there MIGHT be something here or there. Here is an example, from your first citation:

�Hsieh claimed that some of the wall sections contained rounded cobblestones and he concluded that the long linear formation of the underwater rock structure made them most likely man-made works.
Here is another example. This is an interview from Dr., Gorodnitzky (��known as a poet and a song writer��):

�I submerged to see that myself, made some sketches. Other geologists drew alters [sic -- probably meant "altars"] or walls - that was what they had seen, we could not take any photographs at that time.�

Why couldn�t they take photographs? Note that Gorodnitzky never says why, nor does he mention bringing back any samples! In other words, he spins this yarn about an expedition and fails to bring back a single piece of evidence -- or even a photo! Doesn�t that sound just a tad suspicious?

The information on the �pre-Harappan� city found offshore in India sounds like a possibility, because the article mentions bring up actual artifacts (although they never get around to actually showing them that I can find). So I figured that if this were a real thing, the real scientific journals would have something about it.

I searched the following journals for information, using the Boolean terms "HARAPPAN OR CAMBAY�. Here is what I found:

American Journal of Archaeology ( hail.he.net... ): No entries.

Archaeology Magazine ( www.he.net... ) Seven entries, none of which dealt with undersea ruins.

Journal of Archaeological Research ( www.kluweronline.com... ) No entries.

Current World Archaeology ( www.archaeology.co.uk... ) Although they have no search capability, I reviewed back issues for two years and saw nothing of a pre-Harappan civilization, or any mention of a submerged city in Cambay or anyplace else.

What does this tell you?

Well, when I see a bunch of articles in tabloids like Pravda or "human interest� type stories in general press, I think that there may be something to it. But if I start looking in the various juried journals and magazines and see nothing, I�m beginning to think that it, like the many �Stone Columns� (which happen to be the same tired old naturally-occurring basalt columns which crystallize into hexagonal forms), is just another wild-goose chase.

So in summary, I see nothing at all wrong with Ms. Byrd�s comments. Outside of Plato, we have no independent reporting of �Atlantis�; nor do we, as far as I know, have any physical evidence of it whatsoever.

Muad�dib, I am not saying that �Atlantis� as believed by most people never existed (although I doubt that it did). What I am saying is that no one I know of has come up with a single shred of evidence for its existence.

One of the tenets of real science is that the people with they assertions or hypotheses have the obligation to provide evidence for those assertions or hypotheses.

I�m still waiting, and, so, I believe, is my esteemed colleague Ms. Byrd.

This guy's got one HELL of a publicist... Even made my local newscast tonight as a blurb. Jim Allen (one of the founders of the Altiplano theory) is likely storming around the house right now.....as his theory has almost every piece of Plato's puzzle of Atlantis....