Art Atlantis' Existence and Place On Earth

[zoobyshoe]

Plato says Atlantis was in the Atlantic ocean, right?

 

[Pythagorean]

So I'm assuming the Strait of Gibraltar has already been thoroughly searched?

The wiki says that the ancients never took the story of Atlantis seriously and that it is only in modern times that people do so.

 

[Wodash]

So is this all "proof" of the existence of the continent of Atlantis? Well, no, but it sure is some heavy duty evidence and unexplainable data!

If you were to do some research, you would find that most of what is termed unexplainable, HAS been explained. It may not be to your satisfaction because you may have preconceived notions about science, such as is portrayed in the books of what are called "fringe" writers. These writers are explorers and adventurers but are not trained in the fields of endeavor that they write about. Michael Cremo for instance. Personally, I love the books of such writers myself - Sitchen, Cremo, Graham Phillips, etc., but often times what they say, is their opinion and not scientific fact. They are very smart, but they are not professionals. Other than being professional authors! Andrew Collins for instance, is an author who writes books about his Phychic searches for things lost in history.

I loved the story of Atlantis myself, and three years ago or so, I thought I'd see if I could prove it was true. The facts defeated me! Atlantis did not exist. Using the information science has made available for us in these modern times, there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis.

Plato wrote http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html that Atlantis was in the ocean outside the Straits of Gibraltar (Cadiz). There has been a lot of bathymetry done in that area, and there is nothing to indicate that there has been a subsidence of a land mass in that area. Especially one with mountains as high as Plato says Atlantis mountains were.

Furthermore, Atlanteans supposedly had "ships" to cross the ocean with, 11,500 years ago. There were no peoples with that technology during that time frame. People were hunter gatherers in that time frame. Plato says they had an army. No one had an army in that time frame. This army supposedly used chariots. The Wheel, nevermind the chariot, had not been invented yet. To develop these technologies and tactical applications, a prequel had to exist. In other words, these things are not developed suddenly. We do not go from a hollowed out log to a Trireme in a few hundred years. So Atlantis had to exist for a long time in the past, to be this developed.

As has been said, the world was in the grip of an ice age in this time frame. Did they put skids on their ships and slide them across the ocean or what? Who would they have fought back then? The Greeks were not known as yet, people had just barely started to think about farming, and yet supposedly the Greeks too had "warlike men" (army) according to Plato.

Not.

 

[CEL]

If you were to do some research, you would find that most of what is termed unexplainable, HAS been explained. It may not be to your satisfaction because you may have preconceived notions about science, such as is portrayed in the books of what are called "fringe" writers. These writers are explorers and adventurers but are not trained in the fields of endeavor that they write about. Michael Cremo for instance. Personally, I love the books of such writers myself - Sitchen, Cremo, Graham Phillips, etc., but often times what they say, is their opinion and not scientific fact. They are very smart, but they are not professionals. Other than being professional authors! Andrew Collins for instance, is an author who writes books about his Phychic searches for things lost in history.

I loved the story of Atlantis myself, and three years ago or so, I thought I'd see if I could prove it was true. The facts defeated me! Atlantis did not exist. Using the information science has made available for us in these modern times, there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis.

Plato wrote http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html that Atlantis was in the ocean outside the Straits of Gibraltar (Cadiz). There has been a lot of bathymetry done in that area, and there is nothing to indicate that there has been a subsidence of a land mass in that area. Especially one with mountains as high as Plato says Atlantis mountains were.

Furthermore, Atlanteans supposedly had "ships" to cross the ocean with, 11,500 years ago. There were no peoples with that technology during that time frame. People were hunter gatherers in that time frame. Plato says they had an army. No one had an army in that time frame. This army supposedly used chariots. The Wheel, nevermind the chariot, had not been invented yet. To develop these technologies and tactical applications, a prequel had to exist. In other words, these things are not developed suddenly. We do not go from a hollowed out log to a Trireme in a few hundred years. So Atlantis had to exist for a long time in the past, to be this developed.

As has been said, the world was in the grip of an ice age in this time frame. Did they put skids on their ships and slide them across the ocean or what? Who would they have fought back then? The Greeks were not known as yet, people had just barely started to think about farming, and yet supposedly the Greeks too had "warlike men" (army) according to Plato.

Not.

The Atlanteans could be overdeveloped in relation to all other people on Earth. But, according to Plato, they were defeated by the Athenians. Certainly there were no Athenians 10 thousand years before Plato's time.

 

[Jon the kid]

I have seen shows about Atlantis. They believe it to be a real historical nation, if not fabricated by the writing of Plato... Maybe atlantis was located on a part of the berring straight in alaska/russia. It could have been located in a particular area that stayed above water long enough for a exploring nation to discover it... The only thing is that Plato writes about the greeks trading with them... I am not sure but please respond to this comment.

 

[Wodash]

The shows you have seen have been put on by TV channels that are looking for a wide audience and good ratings, not necessarily telling the truth. Actually, there are a lot of disgruntled people in the scientific world who would like to see more factual shows regarding the histories of the cultures that DID exist in the past.

The only person in history to actually write anything about a specific place called Atlantis, was Plato. Others, in their histories, mentioned Atlanteans, however, these people were mentioned as living at the base of the Atlas mountains near modern day Tunisia and were considered to be the children (descendants) of Atlas, therefore, called Atlanteans. But there is no other writer who has described this place Plato speaks of nor the events he speaks of. For the reasons I gave earlier. The things he said existed in that time frame, didn't exist.

That does not mean there aren't sunken cities. There are. That doesn't mean that maybe just maybe, someone sailed to the Americas even before the Vikings. It simply means that Plato's story is a fabrication. As to whether or not the ancients did sail to the Americas that's still to be proven.

You will hear all kinds of stories as to where Atlantis was. But just remember. There had to be a developed society, for any of the story to be true, and if you research just a few of the things I mentioned, like ship building, horse training, invention of the wheel (especially the hub of the wheel so it could steer), organized armies, etc. etc., you will find they did not exist in the time line Plato gives for the destruction of Atlantis, never mind any time BEFORE that. No doubt there were cultures developing in different parts of the world at different times, and some were likely more advanced in certain techniques than others, but there was none that had ocean sailing vessels that could carry a non existent army into the Med., and attack three different areas at the same time. Cel is correct. There were no Athenians in the time line given by Plato.

 

[mugaliens]

I believe the only known Atlantis claims come from Plato. There is no conclusive historical evidence supporting these claims. Many people believe the story is fiction.

Were they even ever claims? Or were they merely fiction set amidst real geography, much as we do, today?

As for "conclusive historical evidence," there is no direct evidence supporting Atlantis, per se', but there is massive, undisputed historical evidence that ancient seafarers ranged broad and far throughout their ocean travels.

There is also evidence right in front of our noses that we may simply be standing on it. Let's consider Pato's introduction, from Timaeus:

"For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent."​

It's well known that Plato's "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules" on either side of the Straight of Gibralter. Plato makes no claim that Atlantis lies beyond the mouth, just that it was land surrounding the "real ocean" beyond the pillars, and that the land was beyond the "real ocean."

I can think one such land mass which fits this description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Americas_(orthographic_projection).svg" , and in this view one can see not only the Americas, but also the Straight of Gibralter.

How might this be possible? The only plausible explanation here would be if ancient mariners from Europe made the same or similar voyage as did the Vikings. Many people say, "Impossible! The Vikings could barely do it, and human progression has been steady..."

Has it really? Then how were the Polynesians able to settle the South Pacific several thousand years ago after crossing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Polynesian_Triangle", including to remote Hawaii, some 2,000 years ago, and most certainly most other areas many thousands of years before that, according to acheological and genetic evidence found throughout the rest of the South Pacific arena.

It's a common, and regrettably modern misconception that we were largely landlubbers, or at least confined to the coasts, until the last few hundred years, and that misconception really is a myth, certainly far less plausible than idea that the Americans may be what was referred to as "Atlantis."

 

[Max™]

I noticed quite a few references to this region when I was researching the last ice age for a discussion regarding climate variability in the past.

http://www.atlan.org/articles/true_history/index.html

Kinda makes sense compared to the stuff I've seen in random TV "searches for the lost city of atlantis", what do you think?

 

[nismaratwork]

Atlantis, Lemuria... it's all in the same vein. There are certainly landmasses which are no longer above the ocean, but that doesn't mean every bit of sunken dirt housed an advanced civilization. I take Mugalians' view, which is that this was a bit of colorful fiction set amidst some contemporary geography. That, or Stargate is right, and Atlantis is now in the Pegasus galaxy!

 

[Nik_2213]

Occam's Razor suggests that the Santorini explanation is the most plausible one...

Anyone sailing to Santorini post-apocalypse will have found a flooded caldera where a substantial island had stood: Verily, it had sunk beneath the waves.

There's plenty of volcanoes around the Med', but their eruptions are on a different scale to this catastrophe. It's quite likely, given the magnitude of the eruption and probable tsunamis that no-one was around to see the island *explode* and survive to tell of it...

And, yes, the Athenians weren't around at the time. Besides, the Sea Peoples, the Vikings of their day, seem to have moved into the void created by the collapse of the My' empire and the loss of their navy...

So, when Plato wants to set his cautionary tale some-where...

It's a bit like the Arthurian legends, where Camelot seems to have grown towers in the re-telling, and the famed knights may have begun as a few descendants of Roman heavy cavalry...

 

[Garth]

Occam's Razor suggests that the Santorini explanation is the most plausible one...

Anyone sailing to Santorini post-apocalypse will have found a flooded caldera where a substantial island had stood: Verily, it had sunk beneath the waves.

http://www.santorini.net/119.html and http://www.santorini.net/112.html

Garth

 

[mugaliens]

Santorini is on the wrong side of the Rock of Gibralter, and the Mediterranean is the wrong body of water.

The passage is clear. If Atlantis ever did exist, it was way out in the Atlantic, if not across it.

 

[Nik_2213]

I've seen the case made for part of Scandinavia, or even the Channel Islands...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands

At least those had the merit that they and their surrounding land was part of continental Europe until the sea-level rose after last ice-age. It's entirely possible that a lot of land linking the current islands was sheltered by dunes, salt-marsh etc until swamped en-masse in a great storm...

Snag is that the only mighty civilisation known to have been lost to the sea in those millenia is the Mycenaean. Sadly, even they weren't magnificent enough for Plato...

 

[FlexGunship]

If I may pose a question... .I've never considered Atlantis to be anything but a myth. On what grounds is it possible that it isn't simply fiction?

For example, we don't presuppose that every Agatha Christie novel is non-fiction until lack of evidence relegates it to a weaker standing. In fact, lately, I feel the same way about MSNBC and Fox. Doesn't the combination of "unlikeliness" (an anachronistic civilization) and lack of observation (reports from only a single source in a single work) kind of force it into the "fiction" category (even if we don't want it there)?

Is there any other myth with a similar background that would be taken this seriously?

 

[granpa]

If I may pose a question... .I've never considered Atlantis to be anything but a myth. On what grounds is it possible that it isn't simply fiction?

For example, we don't presuppose that every Agatha Christie novel is non-fiction until lack of evidence relegates it to a weaker standing. In fact, lately, I feel the same way about MSNBC and Fox. Doesn't the combination of "unlikeliness" (an anachronistic civilization) and lack of observation (reports from only a single source in a single work) kind of force it into the "fiction" category (even if we don't want it there)?

Is there any other myth with a similar background that would be taken this seriously?

the city of babel and the great flood are taken seriously by some.
BTW, there have been lots of cities called 'Babel/Able/Enoch/Mahalalel/Mehujael/Jabal/Babylon'.

 

[FlexGunship]

the city of babel and the great flood are taken seriously by some.
BTW, there have been lots of cities called 'Babel/Able/Enoch/Mahalalel/Mehujael/Jabal/Babylon'.

Hmm... I guess you have a point. But, for some, they are raised from birth under the perception that this particular myth (the great flood or the story of Babel) is integral to their faith system (and to the safety and security of their eternal soul).

Atlantis is just a story.

 

[Andre]

There is abundant proof that there was no such thing as a great flood, at least not in the calibrated part of carbon dating, where we find continuous uninterrupted annual processes in which the years can be counted, like annual grow rings of coral, tree rings and annual sedimentation of lakes and ice layers in ice cores. If there would have been a global flood, or even bigger than regional, all these records would have to show a hiatus in the same timeframe. That's not the case.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is abundant proof that there was no such thing as a great flood, at least not in the calibrated part of carbon dating, where we find continuous uninterrupted annual processes in which the years can be counted, like annual grow rings of coral, tree rings and annual sedimentation of lakes and ice layers in ice cores. If there would have been a global flood, or even bigger than regional, all these records would have to show a hiatus in the same timeframe. That's not the case.

Not sure you can prove something did not happen. I mean, I grant that carbon dating evidence can put some heavy constraints on it, but still...

I've read more than one story where the Great Flood was, in fact, the filling of a formerly dry lowlands area with what is, in present day, a body of water.

One story suggests that the Black Sea was once a dry valley before the Mediterranean flooded it by way of the Sea of Marmara. Another more fanciful story suggests that, prehistorically, the entire Mediterranean was once dry land until Gibraltar gave way.

These would not show up in the aforementioned land-based records.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm... I guess you have a point. But, for some, they are raised from birth under the perception that this particular myth (the great flood or the story of Babel) is integral to their faith system (and to the safety and security of their eternal soul).

Atlantis is just a story.

This is a red herring. Some people having their own reasons to believe something does not detract from its truthhood.

[Edited]

 

[granpa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

Sometimes during the Tertiary period the Bab-el-Mandeb closed and the Red Sea evaporated to an empty hot dry salt-floored sink. Effects causing this would be:

1. A "race" between the Red Sea widening and Perim Island erupting filling the Bab el Mandeb with lava.
2. The lowering of world sea level during the Ice Ages due to much water being locked up in the ice caps.​

 

[DaveC426913]

doesnt

Thx.

 

[hamster143]

There is abundant proof that there was no such thing as a great flood, at least not in the calibrated part of carbon dating, where we find continuous uninterrupted annual processes in which the years can be counted.

There is abundant proof that the great flood did not happen exactly as described in the document (submerging the entire planet except for the top of mount Ararat in a few weeks of continuous rains).

There is literary as well as archeological evidence of heavy flooding in Sumer circa 2900 BC, which devastated some cities and managed to leave sediments from Uruk to Kish (about 200 km away from each other). And there is a direct connection between Sumerian flood myths and Biblical flood myths, which draws a parallel between the king of one of the destroyed Sumerian cities and Noah.

 

[FlexGunship]

There is literary as well as archeological evidence of heavy flooding in Sumer circa 2900 BC, which devastated some cities and managed to leave sediments from Uruk to Kish (about 200 km away from each other). And there is a direct connection between Sumerian flood myths and Biblical flood myths, which draws a parallel between the king of one of the destroyed Sumerian cities and Noah.

The guy who gathered all of his livestock onto a raft and floated to safety was named Ziasudra.

 

[Andre]

Not sure you can prove something did not happen. I mean, I grant that carbon dating evidence can put some heavy constraints on it, but still...

I've read more than one story where the Great Flood was, in fact, the filling of a formerly dry lowlands area with what is, in present day, a body of water.

One story suggests that the Black Sea was once a dry valley before the Mediterranean flooded it by way of the Sea of Marmara. Another more fanciful story suggests that, prehistorically, the entire Mediterranean was once dry land until Gibraltar gave way.

These would not show up in the aforementioned land-based records.

Well, I was not excluding local floods for sure. The black sea story has been challenged http://www.ad-astra.ro/research/view_publication.php?publication_id=6840&lang=en , probably not a lot of witnesses

But practically the past has some uncertainties too

Maybe that the biggest flood ever happened 55 million years ago.

 

[FlexGunship]

[Post deleted by author; off-topic]

 

[mugaliens]

Oh! WHO grobbied my post after I spent an hour on it..!

argh...

I actually had something inciteful to say, as I always do.

Eh, so sad.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I was not excluding local floods for sure.

Back then, that locality was the whole world.

the http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017221592?Scientists:%20Huge%20Flood%205.3%20Million%20Years%20Ago%20Created%20Mediterranean%20Sea , probably not a lot of witnesses

The fanciful story I read had Neanderthals as the witnesses. That's still off by about 5.2 million years though...

 

[Andre]

There have been many 'local' floods of course. Here is an interesting overview of flood saga's through the world. Interesting is the Greek version Deucalion is mentioned by Plato in the Critias in the story about Atlantis.

I used it in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=270543&highlight=deucalion&page=283 .

Other "great floods" that occurred at the beginning of the Holocene, apart from http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/virtualtour/index.html and https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/Agassiz/Lake%20Agassiz.asp in North America and end of the last Glacial is the North Sea between the UK and the Netherlands. Hence there is also an Atlantis version for the Netherlands, the Oera Linda book, wiki here. It's assessed to be a fantasy forgery by a famous nineteenth century author, Piet Paaltjens, however odd detail is that the http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2009.00326.x/abstract was unknown at his time.

Bottom line the Atlantis tales of Plato give a lot of reason to unfounded speculations but it's likely that he just wanted to make a point about nature forces prevailing over humans.

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh! WHO grobbied my post after I spent an hour on it..!

argh...

I actually had something inciteful to say, as I always do.

Eh, so sad.

It happens [STRIKE]suspiciously[/STRIKE] surprisingly often.

 

[FlexGunship]

This is a red herring. Some people having their own reasons to believe something does not detract from its truthhood.

Maybe, but doesn't it bias it? If I have personal reasons for believing in ghosts, aren't I more likely to give you a positive "ghost report" than someone who doesn't have that same personal reason?

The conversation you quoted followed this form:

Me: "Why does myth-A get such special attention."
Other: "Myth-B (sic. Biblical) gets the same amount of attention."
Me: "Yes, but those myth-B is part of a personal belief system, whereas myth-A is not."
You: "Regardless of belief system, it may be true."

I don't think my statement was a red herring, I believe your's was a non-sequitur (most likely because of a previous "out-of-context" quotation). We were not discussing the veracity of claims, simply why certain ones seem to get more attention than others.