It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alantis myth from Canary Islands

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: Marduk
Well if he spoke the truth, he was describing a bronze age culture. So its somewhere around 3000BCE and he got the date wrong

Unless of course it's just described as "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"...

If you cut a 0 from Platos statement and see where the date land, look up the "Sea People". A civilization with unknown origin, advanced enough weaponry to wreck other civilizations in the eastern mediterrainian (until the Egyptians beat them down) and then they vanish from history again.

Coincidence?


Yes.

Bad match. See the 24 points mentioned by Marduk:

no- no single homeland1. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been located where an island used to be and where parts of it may still exist.
no- ibid 2. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
no- they come from inside 3. The Atlantis should have been located outside the Pillars of Hercules.
no- no single homeland 4. The Metropolis of Atlantis was greater than Libya and Anatolia and Middle East and Sinai (combined).
no- not literate 5. Atlantis must have sheltered a literate population with metallurgical and navigational skills.
yes - 6. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been routinely reachable from Athens by sea.
inconclusive - Athens was a Mycenaean city then- 7. At the time, Atlantis should have been at war with Athens.
no 8. The Metropolis of Athens must have suffered a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.
no 9. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have sunk entirely or partly below the water.
no 10. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 Egyptian years before the 6th century B.C.
no 11. The port of Atlantis was 50 stadia (7,5 km) from the city.
uncertain - we're not sure of numbers - 12. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army (10,000 chariots, 1,200 ships, 1,200,000 hoplites)
no 13. The region of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.
no 14. The destruction of Atlantis was accompanied by an earthquake.
no 15. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked.
no 16. Elephants were present in Atlantis.
no 17. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the destruction of Atlantis.
18. Hot and cold springs, with mineral deposits, were present in Atlantis.
no 19. Atlantis lay on a coastal plain 2000 X 3000 stadia surrounded by mountains falling into the sea.
yes - 20. Atlantis controlled other states of the period.
yes - 21. Winds in Atlantis came from the north (only in Northern hemisphere)
unknonwn -22. The rocks in Atlantis were of various colors: black, white, and red.
no 23. There were canals for irrigation in Atlantis.
no 24. Every 5th and 6th year, they sacrificed bulls.




posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
As I said earlier, the name of the place was not Atlantis and the name of its opponents was not Athenians
Both these details were from a translation that only translated the meaning of names and not the actual noun

So the name Atlantis, which means "island of Atlas" was completely made up by Plato, because Atlas was the Greek God equivalent, so the actual patron God would be "God of endurance or astronomy" and Athenian would be from "Goddess of war"

I think this neatly explains why you shouldn't be looking for Athenians in 9600BCE



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
Yes.

Bad match.

Well when you attribute everything that Plato probably pulled from random myths to make Atlantis bigger and cooler than it really was then everything is a bad match. But yeah, sure, it can be coincidence that there is a story about two... eh, well three if we count the Minoan link... seafaring superpowers in the same area.
edit on 27-8-2016 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: Byrd
Yes.

Bad match.

Well when you attribute everything that Plato probably pulled from random myths to make Atlantis bigger and cooler than it really was then everything is a bad match. But yeah, sure, it can be coincidence that there is a story about two... eh, well three if we count the Minoan link... seafaring superpowers in the same area.


Well, I don't really know of any superpowers in the ancient world which weren't seafaring, do you ?


I can think of a civilisation which matches all of the Milos points, apart from 9600BCE and Athenians



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

Well, I don't really know of any superpowers in the ancient world which weren't seafaring, do you ?


Egypt, actually. They eventually got around to seafaring, but were never as proficient as others.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Marduk

Well, I don't really know of any superpowers in the ancient world which weren't seafaring, do you ?


Egypt, actually. They eventually got around to seafaring, but were never as proficient as others.

Still not sailors, I thought it had been proven that the Egyptians were trading by sea as early as King Sahure (2500 B


Sahure launched several naval expeditions to modern day Lebanon to procure cedar trees, people (possibly slaves) and exotic items. He also ordered the earliest attested expedition to the land of Punt, which brought back large quantities of myrrh, malachite and electrum.

source
So if they weren't a naval power in 2500BCE, how did he launch "several naval expeditions", I doubt that he invented that technology himself in the 13 years that he was King
And you also have a text dated to 2200BCE called "the shipwrecked sailor"



The sailor then answered, "Now I shall tell that which has happened to me, to my very self. I was going to the mines of Pharaoh, and I went down on the sea in a ship of one hundred and fifty cubits long and forty cubits wide, with one hundred and fifty sailors of the best of Egypt who had seen heaven and earth, and whose hearts were stronger than lions. They had said that the wind would not be contrary, or that there would be none. But as we approached the land, the wind arose, and threw up waves eight cubits high. As for me, I seized a piece of wood; but those who were in the vessel perished, without one remaining

source


Also, you have mail



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

No I have no interest in primates or lemur's or for that matter any other monkey's though I do feel a pang for the loss of there environment and humanity's inability to live in harmony with the world around it.

Thank you for the dating as well, interesting so that story is bunk then if that is correct but like I say I do not believe in Plato's atlantis anyway and think that thera is too small to match it even if almost every other significant note does.

BUT I do believe in lost land's and the very, very real possibility for lost cultures and even civilization's though I know your stance on that will be to argue the fertile crescent and in it's favour it is still the the region with the most find's and research to back it up.

But then it would be as it is also one of the most archeaologically studied region's on the planet in part due to it's importance in world religion and not just Isreal but the entire region.

And of course it is also possible that Agriculture and plant cultivation may predate the 10.000 to 9000 years currently attached to it.

Of course dependant upon your view's based on wether culture's arose independantly in the America's, Asia and Europe of if they learned from and were inspired by one another then there are two argument's on that subject which are valid.

If they learned from one another OK for your standard view as it would mean that they also learned to cultivate crop's, they then cultivated the local crop's which thrived so that would explain the different food staples in the region's.

If they learned independently and had no contact as many still argue however then how did these isolated groups all learn to grow crop's independently and there ancestors prior to 10.000 years not learn to do so.

Too many holes in the standard explanation and it want's human's to be all new and shiny or it does not work because it make's no sense at all.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Too many holes in the standard explanation and it want's human's to be all new and shiny or it does not work because it make's no sense at all.


You see holes, I see the facts and the one big fact that contradicts the new world learning from old is that
Sumerian culture 3400BCE
Egyptian culture 3100BCE
S American culture 3500BCE

Introducing you to the city of Huaricanga

Time travel ?


To an intelligent person, this should explain why we didn't need agriculture any earlier

edit on 27-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
Still not sailors, I thought it had been proven that the Egyptians were trading by sea as early as King Sahure (2500 B


Oh yes, they traded by sea - though land routes were more common. They even had a navy. But they weren't in the same league as the Phoenicians and Greeks.

And yes, I'm familiar with the Shipwrecked Sailor.


Also, you have mail


??? Not seeing any.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

Oh yes, they traded by sea - though land routes were more common. They even had a navy. But they weren't in the same league as the Phoenicians and Greeks.

.


The qualifier to that question wasn't what league they were in, but were they seafaring
I think they qualify



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Of course hunter gatherer society was able to self sustain and indeed even still exist's today such as the Africen bushmen etc.

However that is based on what is known of area's of known human habitation and population and as someone whom is obviously interested in these matters then you have to remember that during the ice age sea level's were quite a bit lower, the higher you are especially during a time of ice bound continent's the colder and less hospitable it is but which is also a no brainer so therefore as has been pointed out by a great many people (long before hancock and green etc) the fertile land's (Which may well also have been solely populated by hunter gatherer's but we can only hypothesis either way here) were the more desirable locality's to live, to hunt or if any form of agriculture did exist then to farm.

Either way hunter gatherer (and as you know the Hunter gatherer society's were well able to build city's though not as many or as large as the later and more advanced agriculture based society's, point in question being Katal huyak (which is surprisingly similar to some later native american city's from the Anasazi period in many way's though there is no link at all between them being seperated both by time and geographically).

Then there are the like's of Lepenski Viir which you are also well aware of with it's scuptures that would make a henry moor fan weep (persoanlly I prefer classical greco roman and renaissance period art and can't stand that new age rubbish) which may have been a cult site or a religious centre of some kind or simply a strange ancient culture which were also probably hunter gatherer's despite there very advanced way of living for there time and geographic locality.

But that is assuming there were not greater density population's in the then warmer, more fertile and pleasant lowland's which are now under water.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
But that is assuming there were not greater density population's in the then warmer, more fertile and pleasant lowland's which are now under water.


and here comes the fact again


The sea levels rose at a huge inch a year or less for thousands of years. So those populations you hypothesize lived on the pleasant lowlands had plenty of time to move uphill and as most early societies were marine based I'm pretty sure that you're right, there must be hundreds of insignificant little villages now underwater

But that's beside the point, the human population 10,000 years ago was 1 million people, spread across the entire earth, that's about what 1/8 the current population of London, we see advances in population figures only when agriculture has been figured out and that is always pre civilisation because you can't grow a civilisation without food..
And that's the point and the fatal flaw in your argument, agriculture leaves clear evidence. There isn't any before 9500BCE on the whole. We currently eat wheat, its a grass, like any other grass, it needed thousands of years of deliberate cultivation to get it where it is today and before that happens, again, you can't feed a population
wheat evolution


Civilisation is about food more than anything else, if you can supply the food, then give the populace something to think about which will stop them from rebelling, like religion, then you've made it. Without that, you're screwed, and dead.

Also, I've heard you state several times about coming out of the ice age, we haven't yet, the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. we are still in an ice age. This is just an interglacial period, its going to get cooler before it gets warmer..
Don't panic, you've got enough time to live your life, die and then realise you got ripped off by your priest, although I'm not too sure about the level of your realisation on that last part, I see you sitting in Valhalla, asking the Vikings "has anyone seen Jesus"



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
So lets look at the date
Timaeus



for the sake of the goddess (Neith/Athena) who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.


So the priest here (Sonchis) gets the date of Atlantis (not called Atlantis)from the following sum
Harte check my math please
Date of conversation 400BCE (Approx.)
Date of foundation of Sais
8000 years
Date of foundation of Athens
1000 years earlier
----------------------------
9400BCE

Now here's the problem, Sais at the most, even if you take it back to the original village, dates to no earlier than 1400BCE

SO THE ACTUAL MATH
Date of conversation 400BCE (Approx.)
Date of foundation of Sais
1000 years earlier
Date of foundation of Athens
1000 years earlier (according to Sonchis)
----------------------------
2400BCE

This is the most recent date for the destruction of Plato's city, 2400BCE

Another dating clue is here
This is from a description of Poseidon's (not Poseidon) temple in Atlantis



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


Chariot history is pretty well known, this is the oldest depiction of a chariot on record


Its the famous "standard of Ur" and dates to 2500BCE, as the chariots are fully formed in 2500BCE, you can add what, 500 or 600 years to get to that stage, giving us an earliest possible date for a chariot riding statue of 3100BCE (Approx.)
And this then matches everything Plato said, because there's not a single word in any of those texts that describes Atlantis as anything but Bronze aged.

The Bronze age started in Mesopotamia around 3600BCE

So that's the range of dates you should be looking in, anywhere from 2400BCE to 3200BCE



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Right and here come's another fact, it is a rather large one like a ball and chain so brace yourself since you have hopped over it and pretended it did not exist.

The rise you are claiming and upon which the nice neat graph is based is an AVERAGE that does NOT take into account fluctuation's and disaster's which DID happen and did so many time's, the Geological pressure fluctuation's also had the obvious implication of caused quake's and the increase of ocean pressure would also cause predictable sea plate depression while the removal of up to two or more mile's of ice from the hinterland (which would have remained uninhabitable for much of this period including some of the more disastrous period's) would of course also mean that the Continental plate's would then rise as there native buoyancy was restored.

Even today the effect's are still ongoing, Norway for instance is rising, the Southern British isle's and part's of France are sinking and like Norway the nothern British isle's are rising, now just like that big fat kid that was hogging the continental see-saw got off europe there is also a very good chance that Greenland ((which is continental material (granitic and richer in Aluminium) not like Iceland basaltic proto continent (richer in iron) which has a mountain chain comparable to the himalayas at it's heart (but buried and subducted by the pressure of the huge Greeland Ice sheet)) may also see it's mass of ice melt back into the ocean within just a few lifetime's if the climate continues going the way it is and it that happen's expect not only more water in the ocean's along with disasterous de-salination probably reducing or even stopping the oceanic conveyor with it's warming action for the northern hemisphere but also the encumbant geological activity as this pressure is released from the curst and the natural water and magma redistribution takes place both over the continental plate's and under them (Magma has a density about that of Iron but it is of course at those pressures and temperatures far more like a viscous fluid which any geologist would explain is a common analogy for most earth surface behaviour in which they also model even land as behaving in a manner similar to viscous fluid over geological time).

Sorry to crack it to you but that is a nice neat graph based on AVERAGE sea level rise AND even were it may take into account fluctuation that is under represented in that presentation, given the paucity of data for those period's though it is likely the most accurate nevertheless.

Now also take into account that this graph's data is also based on SURVIVING evidence in the Geological record and compiled by Whom from What sources.

Now how about doing us a study on Potato, Corn and Tomato evolution, you know when Tomato's were first brought to europe people would not eat them as they looked just like there European cousin Nightshade which of course is Toxic, indeed green Tomato's are still slightly Toxic which is why we are only supposed to eat them when they are red and ripe.

You know presentation does not matter, I am not a school teacher heart goes in for all that I want substance that I can relate too.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Marduk

Right and here come's another fact, it is a rather large one like a ball and chain so brace yourself since you have hopped over it and pretended it did not exist.



This seems to be another fact that you aren't fully understanding

The technical name for this phenomena is Isostatic depression, the reason that its called isostatic, (derived from static), is that although its true, that glaciers cause a landmass to sink, when that weight is taken off, they rebound to their former positions. I don't think you are denying that, but you didn't account for the water, which when melting ends up back in the sea, so Glaciers have very little effect on global sea levels in relation to shore lines. In fact, the most dangerous phenomena is a storm surge, which can flood hundreds of miles inland and that weight of water, also depresses the landmass, which then makes it very difficult to dry things out...




But that's ok, I understand you have very limited knowledge in this topic, so here's some animations for you to prove it







These aren't based on averages, but real physical evidence. Funny how they support the graph I posted earlier isn't it.

But that's all irrelevant anyway because



on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

An earthquake indicates geologic upheaval, not a glacial flood, not a storm surge, but the same thing that sank all those cities off Greece which I posted a link to earlier...

While you are here, why not admit that you got everything you know about isostatic depression from Graham Hancocks underworld, which was another of his books where he deliberately withheld evidence all the way through and what you just came out with, was practically said in his voice. Clearly, you haven't followed up on it and are parroting his version of Earth science, which is a lie...


Now do you actually have anything to add to this topic, because so far all you've done is deny or ignore the facts I have presented here. I mean, you completely ignored my post about dating, I think because it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs, you need Atlantis in 9600BCE to support your creationism. So I think we are done. Let me know if that's not the case

edit on 28-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
You 2 are both right


Overall post-glacial sea level rises were fairly steady. But there were occasions when quite a rapid rise occured in the space of a few decades. Known as MWPs 1A0 to 1C

www.giss.nasa.gov...

However, Marduk is right in urging caution here since even these meltwater pulses would not have seen anywhere experience sea level rises that could not be out-walked by a snail. Notwithstanding which, some catastrophic events did occur, such as the North Sea Tsunami caused by the Storegga Slide that finally inundated the remains of Doggerland around 8,200 years ago (this did not, however, result in any overall sea level rise)

eesc.columbia.edu...

Whether this was an origin for some flood myths - even Platos Atlantis - is a moot point. Though, oddly, there are no myths from the North Sea region that appear to orginate from this. So chances are it was not.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Thanks for the info Andy

while you're here, could you post up that list of Glacial actions over the last few million years I know you have somewhere. The one that lists all the interglacial periods

Thanks



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Now, Now, Now Marduk it is starting to look to me that you are not interested in the Truth but just in winning an argument, as you well know the overall impact is minimal but on the human and ecological scale the change in sea level and land elevation is actually huge, I am the one that pointed out as you can verify by going back over what I said earlier about the Continental depression, how the Rebound is actually still going on today (which mean's the rebound is not instant, in fact the continental rebound takes considerably longer than the sea level variation's do).

Let me ask you something, think how many problem's in Pleistocene climate modelling would be solved if it turned out that there was a geological feature which altered the course of the ocean conveyor in the Atlantic and what effect the removal of such a barrier or re directional feature would have had upon the northern hemisphere's climate.

For example a Large basaltic proto land mass, shallower ocean level's, more continental mass exposed causing a redirection of the flow (which today in the caribean for example actually flow's OVER submerged continental shelf in some region's).

Now you know the delicate and intricate interplay between the oceanic conveyor, the gulf strean and other weather system's, how it warm's by a couple of degree's the climate of much of the northern hemisphere and shorten's the winter's as a result (With the unfortunate side affect for us brit's - dependant upon were you stand that is - that the moist air evaporated off the Atlantic as a result happens to deposit itself on us most of the time).


Now I have pointed out that I do not believe in the sunken CONTINANT of atlantis but that I DO believe that there are probably a very great many sunken realm's and formerly land area's including some sizable island's in the Atlantic, in fact that does not pose any problem for geologist's, it does however pose ample argument's and headache's for the current Anthropological view point's and archaeological stance if it can be proven that ANY of these existed within the life time of the current human race.

And odd's are that some of them probably, nay, definitely did during the last and the preceeding ice age period's (in fact as you know we are really in an ice age now which has gone on for the last 5 million years or so (4+ million years ago much of northern Africa dried up in a related climate shift, forests and savanna became less and less hospitable and there was even a theory that primates came down from the tree's and learned to walk on two leg's as a result forced to scavange and hunt on the ground) with multiple prolonged inter-glacial period's, for example we had an African savanna type climate here in the UK about 50.000 years ago which is a lot warmer than today even with global warming at least on a regional scale, lion's, hippos', cheetah's and many other african fauna called the area of the western european continental shelf upon which the UK sit's today home).

edit on 28-8-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Marduk
Let me ask you something, think how many problem's in Pleistocene climate modelling would be solved if it turned out that there was a geological feature which altered the course of the ocean conveyor in the Atlantic and what effect the removal of such a barrier or re directional feature would have had upon the northern hemisphere's climate.


None.


For example a Large basaltic proto land mass, shallower ocean level's, more continental mass exposed causing a redirection of the flow


Would have blocked the flow completely, leading to greater icing of Europe. And an area of warmer seas means more extreme weather.

Plus, land masses don't just appear and disappear for no reason.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Right so there have not been at least two former super continent's, Pangea and Gondwanaland and several other's, potentially seven of eight one of which may be the bed of the Pacific as the earth seperated it's chemistry and our current and more stable continent's (richer in aluminium than the ocean plate's) formed.

As you know our continent's are one of the former super continent's as they were called which broke up due to plate tectonics's.

Now you say NONE, Hmm explain.

Explain the sudden thaw at the end of the last ice age (unless you are a propronant of the celstial impact theory in which the idea that a large asteroid, comet or even meteor impaced the ice sheet and caused global warming or the solar cycle theory which is based on current modelling of solar cycles in which the output of the sun is seen as variable and it can both output more and less heat, quite plausible for the snow ball earth period but if the cycles are shortening so fast then there is something wrong with our star or it has built up far more helium in it's core than it should have).

What about the Mass extinction's of fauna that had weathered several previous glacial and inter glacial period's or the apparent weather shift in the northern siberian region.
www.talkorigins.org...
Now I am well aware of Atheist sensibilitys for many on the site but this remain's interesting and relevant.
www.hope-of-israel.org...

(in relation to this site - We know that Thermal plume's put Hapgoods theory well and truly to bed since such natural geological thermal upwelling's which rise from deep inside the planet are a little like Jupiters red spot since they linger for a very long time, Hawaii was formed by a Thermal plume with is still upwelling beneath the island's today and both the Deccan Trap's - now extinct or at least very dormant and Yellowstone park's geological activity are also the result of Thermal plume's, since hapgood's theory of earth crust displacement would mean the outer shell of the earth moving around a bit these plume's would have been left under virgin territory so to speak but a quick analysis of the geology proves that is not the case, the Hawaiian island's for example show a neat line of former and now sunken islands (sea mount volcano's) meaning that the plate they are formed on moved slowly at natural continental drift rate over there formitive plume with no evidence of a sudden shift of the magnitude hapgood's theory would necessitate, similarly the yellowstone caldera seem's to be very ancient and this leave's thing's like this mammoth with no CLEAR explanation other than a cataclysmic and rapid freezing event probably caused by a sudden climate shift with another cause.)

However siberia is an absolutely huge area of land and it actually is not all arctic as we percieve it, in fact some area's can be quite balmy in the summer and have mild winters, there is even a region were apricot's and other fruit's grow today.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join