How do we know that Atlantis existed

Originally posted by Lomillialor
If Atlantic ever existed, I think it is reasonable to assume it never reached any significant degree of technological sophistication. This is because we have not found any old stockpiles of nuclear radiation waste such as would have existed had they perfected nuclear energy. This stuff has half-lives of 1000s of years, thus it is reasonable they would have left some irradiated waste for us to discover.

Also, they never perfected space travel to the degree that they ever landed on the moon. This is because, there is no evidence that they left any trash (equipment, structures, etc) on the moon the way we did when we visited there.

Why do you presume that they would have gone for the dirty energy of the nuclear reaction - rather than, say, zero-point energy, which has no such radiation issues? I'm not saying I give an extremely high probability to some of the claims about Atlantis, but I do think your logic is flawed.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Amaterasu]

Originally posted by speight89
What do you think?

...no doubt in my mind;
Please excuse my humble bumbling as I'm new here--first moments actually!

But the subject is truly intriguing; Intangible to they who seem to be mired in the here & now, and yet to others, perhaps as near tangible and lucid as one's consciousness will allow!

I myself read no farther than magic mushroom's post before I recognized a true commitment to share discernable clues with all who would care to know or seek; That he/she may have then been misunderstood and/or intentionally challenged as to personal veracity prompts my response.

The "evidence" is before our very eyes--all across our world and perhaps even unto that which we seek pertaining to our system and Galaxy.

Make no jest of the political & religious ramifications that other members have presented--Empires have come & gone, yet "we" are here;

Here to address this wondrous perplexity that throws ever increasing & a most alarming caution towards the acceptance of conventional wisdom.

You would not be here were it not so....

Myself, I am an excavating contractor in the western U.S. as well as a Veteran & musician, and in my 50 + years, I've experienced nothing but absolute disdain regarding the attempt by intelligent, caring peoples to bear fruit amongst the progression of continual denial & even rote ignorance by they of said wisdom.

....what proof?..... someone asked?

Before your eyes;

No doubt in my mind!

Excuse me if I may now tend to my regular duties this fine sunny Sunday, & perhaps attend to my profile etc later out of respect for our hosts & fellow members....

'back soon...

Jubilee Valence;

troupadour

To me pre history is like a jigsaw, you need all or most of the pieces to see the whole picture but the trouble with many academics is that they ony find a few pieces and on those theories and careers are staked. An then those academics have to fit into the accepted view and the existing political/religeous dogma of the day. For any academic to move from the mainstream means for some no career, denouncement from all and sundry and if they could get away with it burning at the stake.

We have allowed ourselves to have our history/knowledge dictated to us by a tiny minority who may be right but also could be wrong. Much imformation is conveniently hidden or lost if it does not fit in with mainstream views, say like the Pires Reis map, that showed part of Antartica free of ice. Fake, screamed the academics, not possible, rubbish etc. But what if the map is real, the problem is that to those who have spent their lives believing one theory seem incapable of accepting new data, to them its better to deny it because their ego's will not allow them to think otherwise.

Time and time again alternative thoeries from the Pyramids to Atlantis have come forward only to be denounced by the enlightened ones. Well its about time they started opening their very closed minds and put their ego's to one side and start listening to others with different views and then when we have done that maybe then we can formulate some real theories. History/myths/legends do not belong to the few they belong to all of us and we all have a right to express our views and feelings on these matters.

Yes, Magicmushroom, but those new theories still required proof, something that they often lack, or were based on flawed interpretations of existing data. The Piri Reis map lacks certain details about the coast of Brazil and it can be argued that it doesn't even show Antarctica.
In the meantime I would like to stress that there is no evidence - not a coin, not a stone, not a piece of bone - that Atlantis ever existed. Or where it might be. Or who they traded with. Nothing.
The only proof is in Plato, and there are a large number of holes in the tale.

A new theory gains acceptance when it provides a better explanation of the evidence than previous theories.

When it comes to something like Atlantis or any other idea of ancient civilisation, there is very little evidence to explain and most of it - such as the Piri Re'is map - can be readily, and more simply, explained by other theories.

Well lets go along the route that Atlantis existed, where could it have been located, Plato states it was beyond the pillars of Hercules so that means it could be anywhere. We are told as the legend goes that the land disapeared in a day, what event could remove a large land mass in a day. If such an event occured then it must have affected the rest of the planet, is there any record of any cataclismic changes to the Earth in say the last 25k years or possible longer. If Atlantis disapeared beneath the wave's then would it be possible to locate it, could it be kilometers under water and hundreds of meters of sediment. If it was who would start looking for it and where, who would pay for such an extravagant expedition.

Lets have a working model, Monserat a former inhabited island is being terra formed by the volcano on it. Eventually the island will bear no resemblance to how it looked when inhabited. Let 10k or more pass, how would future generations ever know such a place was inhabited with modern people and technology. If myths existed in the future of this island how would anybody find it given there must be hundreds of thousand of islands on this planet, so where would you start, all you have to go on is a story and a message of its out there somewhere maybe.

You see its not as easy as you think is it, its like placing a needle in a haystack and saying well it does exist but there's a million haysatcks to check to find it. I know you will tell me that the earth's surface and sea floor has been mapped but that dose not take into account external changes to our planet. Lets put it this way if a large bolide hit the Earth today do you think the planet would still look the same, do you think the land masses would no I dont think so. And before you start asking where is the proof of such an event it is highly probable that most Earth impacts are sea strikes so the evidence may be lost. And again is there anybody even looking for such evidence. I'm sure that the Earth has sustained many advanced civilisations that have disapeared either due to natural or man made disasters with little or no trace left. Even the book of revelations is a story of such an event but few believe it.

Dont know what to reply to first hmmmm.

Ok first off it has been suggested that Tiahuanaco (sp) might possibly be Atlantis, watched some program about it - will post links if I find them. The guy had a quite good argument for it but I dont think he's finished his excavations yet. Although, this goes along way in explaining why Egyptian Pharoahs had Cocaine and Tobacco traces found in their mummies and the similarities in reed boats and giant construction projects (also very similar in construction methods)

About the HAB theory, even Einstein thought that Earths Crust Displacement was likey to be correct. This is the correspondence between Einstein and Charles Hapgood

"I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time."

.

The evidence for such a shift in the Earths crust about 12,000 years ago is also very good. The quick freezing of large mammals in Siberia-ish with temperate plants in their stomach and temperate plants found shows that at that point the temperature dropped very very dramatically. While on the other side (Antartica) there is evidence that rivers flowed up until very recently (cant remember exactly but around 4000 - 6000 BCE).

Couple this evidence with the ancient maps found - there's more than just the Piri Reis, theres the Oronteus Finaeus map and the Bauche map to name a few that show Antartica without and with small amounts of ice.

Add all this evidence to other evidence of ancient sites dating to around 10,500 (whether being astronomically or in possible dating) there does seem to be a great possibility that there was an advanced civilisation around 12,000 years ago.

This civilisation could be the source of Plato's Atlantis



G

Hale to Odin somebody else with an open mind (shi) who dossent get taken in with the mainstream view. What we need is more people like this who are willing to accept that there may be a different way to understand our pre history. And for those who say where is the proof well the problem is when such people are presented with the proofs they just refuse to accept this becuase they are slaves to the mainstream view and are guilty acomplacies to the crime.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Lomillialor
If Atlantic ever existed, I think it is reasonable to assume it never reached any significant degree of technological sophistication. (etc)

Why do you presume that they would have gone for the dirty energy of the nuclear reaction - rather than, say, zero-point energy, which has no such radiation issues? I'm not saying I give an extremely high probability to some of the claims about Atlantis, but I do think your logic is flawed.

I think it's pretty obvious. Plato very CLEARLY says that Athens defeated Atlantis in a war.

So Athens would have had better technology.

There's not a shred of evidence that Athens ever had zero point energy or was crystal powered, etc. And unlike Atlantis, we know where Athens is and we know that it was never moved.

So IF it existed, it would have been using horsepower and oil lamps.

Here's a translated extract so people at least know what was said (or thereabouts):

Extracts from Plato's dialogues Kritias and Timaios:

(Plato: Kritias, 108e) "Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants 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."

(113e ff) "And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe. Looking towards the sea, but in the centre of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the centre of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side.
In this mountain there dwelt one of the earth born primeval men of that country, whose name was Evenor, and he had a wife named Leucippe, and they had an only daughter who was called Cleito. The maiden had already reached womanhood, when her father and mother died; Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, inclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another; there were two of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference equidistant every way from the centre, so that no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet. He himself, being a god, found no difficulty in making special arrangements for the centre island, bringing up two springs of water from beneath the earth, one of warm water and the other of cold, and making every variety of food to spring up abundantly from the soil. He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic."

(translated by Benjamin Jowett, MIT archives, online-version)

Originally posted by shihulud

About the HAB theory, even Einstein thought that Earths Crust Displacement was likey to be correct.

Einstein, knowing absolutely nothing whatsoever about geophysics, thought Hapgood's theory to be worthy of further investigations. As indeed it was. Up to the point where further investigation showed it to be totally wrong....

The evidence for such a shift in the Earths crust about 12,000 years ago is also very good. The quick freezing of large mammals in Siberia-ish with temperate plants in their stomach and temperate plants found shows that at that point the temperature dropped very very dramatically.

Well, freezing over a period of days (as shown by the way they were scavenged after death) is hardly quick, nor unusual. And the mammoths that have been examined died between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago - with no increase in numbers around 12,000 years ago. The plant remains and pollen indicate that during the interstadial periods in which these mammoths died (they didn't live there during the colder stadials) temperatures in Siberia were similar to those experienced there today.

While on the other side (Antartica) there is evidence that rivers flowed up until very recently (cant remember exactly but around 4000 - 6000 BCE).

No. But some writers like to deliberately misinterpret data from the Ross Sea Cores in order to give their readers that impression. Geologist Paul Heinrich, on the other hand, does know what he's talking about. And he's not trying to sell a book:

www.intersurf.com...

Couple this evidence with the ancient maps found - there's more than just the Piri Reis, theres the Oronteus Finaeus map and the Bauche map to name a few that show Antartica without and with small amounts of ice.

Although none look anything like Antarctica; they were simply following the convention of the time by depicting a mythical continent where it was commonly though a continent should exist. The continent wasn't shown covered in ice because no-one had seen it and so they didn't know it was covered in ice. Instead they assumed rivers and mountains like anywhere else...

Hi Essan Cheers for clearing most of that up, I am fully aware of the debates on ECD and the ross ice cores and quite readily agree that it is unlikely that Antartica is Atlantis. I was just making a point. The maps of antartica I also disagree are accurate, however there is still some explaining to do on the Piri Reis map for longitudinal accuracy.

I would like to see/read more on the theory that Tiahuanaco could be the basis for the atlantis story. Will try and find more.

Whats your take on it?


G

Well, folk, how about Malta?

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Well, folk, how about Malta?

Same problem - no evidence, wrong time frame, lack of development at Athens. I have heard a theory that Atlantis was Troy - don't forget that the location of the Pillers of Hercules have moved over the years as the Greek's knowledge of the world expanded. It used to be the Dardenelles, making Troy a good bet. Knock a zero off the time mentioned by Solon and you have a fairly good match. It might also explain why Plato never finished the tale of Atlantis - he might have realised that he was writing about an already familiar topic.

Dammit. Malta would've fitted really well. There is evidence of canal systems under water but if it's out of the time frame, then double damn.

Well, if you're going to let the time frame we get from Plato eliminate your speculation, then go ahead and give up now.

If Plato is right, then there was no Atlantis because his time frame reaches far beyond the founding of even a cattle or goatherd camp at the location of the city of Athens.

Harte

The Madeira isl. has many possible descriptions needed including the rings and a volcano in the middle.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

I found this on Atlantis in the Andes, it wasn't tiahuanaco as I first thought but a place called Pampa Aullagas. Heres a link

www.geocities.com...
Also check out anything by Jim M Allen!


What do you'se think????

G

How do we know Atlantis existed, well there is too much physical proof to support it, as well as support the existence of Lemuria. But, lets try something a bit odd in todays world....

What does your intuition say?

Originally posted by LightWorker13
How do we know Atlantis existed, well there is too much physical proof to support it, as well as support the existence of Lemuria. But, lets try something a bit odd in todays world....

What does your intuition say?

There is not even a single, tiny, microscopic particle of evidence, much less any "physical proof," that indicates in any way whatsoever that there is even an outside possibility that Atlantis ever existed at all. Not nowhere. Not nohow.

Harte