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.

 

Atlantis' exclusion from Ancient Maps

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga

Agreed, and Earth could of been warmer then to live on the continent, yet I still see chances of Atlantis existing in the ocean where studies have taken scientists to India, as mentioned, also, the Floridian/Bermuda coast has been speculated.

it wasn't that warm in the last 400,000 years (about 3 times s long as our species has been here)
as for the location
thats just silly, how did the ancient atlantean antarticans or the ancient atlantean floridians wage war against Athens ?

Originally posted by anhinga
All that's surely speculation to me, until some recent discovery proves otherwise; as per records/maps of, should there of been records, a lot could of been destroyed from years of war and reign of tyrants through the Roman and earlier ages... in the Mayan research I'm doing, only three codices remain and a couple of other writings from Spanish rule takeover. Plus, this is a much later time period.

you make a good point but we have discovered more from excavating most cultures that far back rather than by their own texts. Texts may tell you how they did things but archaeology will tell you why and when

good luck with your research




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
What's wrong with : Atlantis -- Plato heard (oral tradition...some facts would get muddled) and wrote about it thousands of years later -- The concentric-circle city setup of Atlantis he wrote about is just like the Aztecs thousands of years later -- Cayce "prophesized" where and when Atlantis would be found (Bimini, 68/69), thousands of years later, near the Aztec base... Four coincidences, thousands of years apart. OR, Atlantis was apparently big and continents were closer together 10,000 years ago, so anywhere past the Straits of Gibraltar into the Atlantic, lets say Bimini, was Atlantis. Very interested in the evidence why not.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kerkinana walsky
 


1) Forgive me for butting in, but has anyone taken into account the differences in sea levels anywhere in all these posts. There was this little thing called an ice age a while back perhaps you've heard of it. Over 10000 years sea levels have chanced on the order of hundreds of feet. Add in an earthquake or two a volcanic eruption. Oops where was the island again?
2) Plato supposedly received his information from Sodon who received his information from an Egyptian priest who got his information passed down for eight thousand years lore. No offense folks but if I tell my wife to tell my mother something, it all gets garbled up.
3) Just because Plato calls it a lost continent does mean it had to be so. Do you really think there were geologists in ancient Greece drilling and taking core samples to tell the difference between earths crust and volcanic upwelling? If it was bigger than they were used to they called it a continent. He claims it was the size or Turkey and Lybia combined. A 300 foot difference in ocean level and the Leeward islands are one land mass. Although I agree Azores geologically speaking or the Canaries are more realistic idea. Plus they fit better into the writings of the Crititias.
4) Geologically speaking with reference to written accounts find me something well documented from ten thousand years ago. Volcanic Eruptions are usually associated with earthquakes which can cause Tsunamis. It doesn’t take a lot of extrapolation. I.E. Toba
5) War between the Atlanteans and Athenians is preposterous unless we are talking about their descendents.


Lets face it folks Atlantis is a story. Most of it could have been based on fact, or none of it at all. The Mayans, Phoenicians, Indians, Greeks, Egyptians all speak of a race of people from an island/continent in the Atlantic with light skinned traders who are extremely intelligent, seagoing peoples. They can’t all be lying can they?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I'm prepared to believe that the Atlantis myth has a kernel of truth. Only a kernel though.

All the guff about advanced technology etc is pure bunk tacked on later by romanticists. Remember, advanced to the ancient Greek doesn't mean advanced to us.


One contender that did occur to me after recently reading 'Britain BC' by Francis Pryor is that the landmass connecting Ancient Britain to mainland Europe could be as viable contender as any for the starting point of the myth.

The area that is now the southern part of the North Sea was above sea level and connected Britain and Europe as late as 8000s BCE.

I think it's easy to imagine a situation where through thousands of years of tales of this land that is now covered by sea weaved it's way into lore and myth. It doesn't really have to be the North Sea, it could be any landmass around the current edge of Europe that is now covered by sea in the current interglacial period.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I feel Plato has exaggerated a real location/event , adding his own bits and concoting Atlantis.

I feel the Black Sea Deluge Theory could answer some part to give an area where the original city that culd have been the origin of the myth could have existed.

check out

Black Sea Deluge and Atlantis-1

Black Sea Deluge and Altnatis-2 ...in pdf

The Black Sea Deluge Theory..on wikipedia

The actual Paper that raised the Black Sea Deluge contrevorsy

and

a good representation of the deluge stuff at a site that says that Atlantis was built by humanoid ETs from the Planet Xylantria or something

but the theory is good and the graphics/images

The Great Altantis Flood??

and one more


The Black Sea, The Flood and Ancient Myths


and one more

Ulf Ricther's (god knows who he is..might e a atlantis researcher) views and calculations on the Atlantis City




Read On, Chew On and Swallow what you like and Spit out what you dont!


[edit on 20/1/09 by coredrill]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Howdy Core

Ah yes more theories, the last three were better thought out in particular the last which doesn't suggestion a location just a change in the scale caused by switching to Khet from Stades.

As I always tell Atlantis believers, stop talking about Atlantis and go find it.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

As I always tell Atlantis believers, stop talking about Atlantis and go find it.


Exactly.

In The Broad sense, there is No Atlantis (i.e Plato's Atlantis)
There might be some stories about some ancient culture/s which got destroyed in a Deluge (could be any deluge)..plato just dramatized/exaggerated it.

Yeah, to all those who swear by Atlantis Crystal power, Go dig!!



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


I had an old professor who had a sign on his door.

F, are given freely
D, given sadly
C, delievered with an admonishment
B, given with a nod
A, given with pleasure
A+, given for a shard of Atlantis pottery



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by coredrill
In The Broad sense, there is No Atlantis (i.e Plato's Atlantis)
There might be some stories about some ancient culture/s which got destroyed in a Deluge (could be any deluge)..plato just dramatized/exaggerated it.


That's something that I find quite plausible. I saw a tv show last year about some Mediterranean sites where an earthquake caused the land to subside quickly and a village was sunk in a relatively short time. It was a place that was known to Plato and the argument by the show (which I found to be plausible) was that this was the kernel of the story about Atlantis. It works quite well, even to the "and all that was left was a big mud flat" scenario (which Atlantis seekers forget about.)



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by coredrill
 


A+, given for a shard of Atlantis pottery


jeez hans, with the type of questions you ask on some other boards, maybe you shouldn’t be telling anyone anything.

atlantis was never going to be found by archaeologists so pottery shards are for retards. its geologists you sillies. they "do" conclusions too you know. they have more and better toys than archaeologists and they can date stuff. archaeologists are second string navvies.

the atlantean stade is one thousand natural strides of a manwoman [that is 1280meters +/- 4meters].


[edit on 20-1-2009 by Parta]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Read the texts again, and then turn the globe on it's side. You'll see what you're looking for.

Now they call it "Antarctica."

And that was on many old maps, centuries before "rediscovered."



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by coredrill
In The Broad sense, there is No Atlantis (i.e Plato's Atlantis)
There might be some stories about some ancient culture/s which got destroyed in a Deluge (could be any deluge)..plato just dramatized/exaggerated it.


That's something that I find quite plausible. I saw a tv show last year about some Mediterranean sites where an earthquake caused the land to subside quickly and a village was sunk in a relatively short time. It was a place that was known to Plato and the argument by the show (which I found to be plausible) was that this was the kernel of the story about Atlantis. It works quite well, even to the "and all that was left was a big mud flat" scenario (which Atlantis seekers forget about.)


here is a tv show you should watch. it says there was a sea in the middle of europe after the last ice age.
cities of the underworld
looking for a shoal of mud? looking for a catastrophic flood?

pela^g-os , eos, to, gen. pl.
A. pelageôn Hdt.4.85 , S.Aj.702 (lyr.), pelagôn Th.4.24 ; Ep. dat. pelagessi (v. infr.) :--the sea, esp. high sea, open sea, p. mega Il.14.16 , Od.3.179, etc.; en pelageï anapeptamenôi Hdt.8.60 .a ; dia pelagous out at sea, opp. para gên, Th.6.13 : freq. coupled with other words denoting sea, halos en pelagessin Od.5.335 ; p. thalassês A.R.2.608 ; p. pontion, pontou p., Pi.O.7.56, Fr.235 ; halion p. E.Hec.938 (lyr.).
2. of parts of the sea ( [thalassa] ), freq. with geographical epith., Aigaion p. A.Ag.659, etc., cf. Hdt.4.85 (p. Aigaias halos E.Tr.88 , Men.Pk.379) ; Ikariôn huper pelageôn S.Aj.702 (lyr.), cf. Luc.Icar.3 ; ek megalôn pelagôn tou te Tursênikou kai tou Sikelikou Th.4.24 .
3. flooded plain, ginetai p. Hdt.2.97, cf. 3.117.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Parta]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I hold that Plato assembled a number of known incidents of disasters to cities, added in some less well known myths, a few flourishes and wallah! He had a good framework for his story.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Howdy Dooper



And that was on many old maps, centuries before "rediscovered."


I don't think so unless you actually personally believed what Hapgood made up. Please don't bring up the Piri Reis. That is so debunked it squeaks.

Or do you have new FRESH evidence that come to light in the last week?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


It's been so long since I read Charles Hapsgood, and even a while since I read Immanuel Velikovsky, but there is evidence, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that could possibly indicate something to that.

It certainly would explain a lot of things that we seem to be stuck on. And after all, Velikovsky was certainly right on many other things he postulated, just before science developed technologically to prove he was correct.

You have your opinion, they had theirs, and I have mine. Now if you have superior credentials to say, Velikovsky, I'm sure we'd all love to hear of them.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Howdy Dooper

Wow someone bringing up Velikovsky, that is rare these days.



It's been so long since I read Charles Hapsgood, and even a while since I read Immanuel Velikovsky, but there is evidence, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that could possibly indicate something to that.


Hans: Well that's the rub,

that could possibly indicate something
, unfortunately they don't.




It certainly would explain a lot of things that we seem to be stuck on.


Hans: Do you mean dealing with ancient civilizations?



And after all, Velikovsky was certainly right on many other things he postulated, just before science developed technologically to prove he was correct.


Hans: his percentage of right vs wrong is certainly not very impressive. If one limits this study to his stuff that effects ancient civilization I don't believe he got anything right.



You have your opinion, they had theirs, and I have mine. Now if you have superior credentials to say, Velikovsky, I'm sure we'd all love to hear of them.


Well Immanuel was a Medical doctor so I'm not sure how his credentials would apply to what he wrote about in Worlds in Collision.

His main contribution would appear to have been:

Ancient mythology is a graphic history based on the experiences of the observers.

Cataclysmic events involving planetary bodies occurred in 'ancient' historical times.

Venus was a comet observed and recorded by our ancestors.

A nova-type disruption of proto-Saturn, the binary of our Sun, initiated the sequence of major catastrophes

The Universe is driven, governed and controlled electrically.

Time frame of the AE chronologies.

But I believe we were talking about maps


[edit on 20/1/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

You see, several years ago, an associate was fascinated by this topic, had accumulated a number of copies or rare texts, and this of course got me interested and caused me to read the material as well.

I don't consider your opinion as highly as you seem to hold your opinion. So I am compelled to reduce your level of expertise to that of "opinion."

In fact, Velikovsky predicted when mainstream scientists were predicting otherwise, that if Venus truly is a newcomer to the Solar System, that the surface temperatures would be unexplainably high.

So it is.

So you are incorrect.

As I thought. And I don't have any of my reference material at this location, or I'd give you a bit of education.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Wow



In fact, Velikovsky predicted when mainstream scientists were predicting otherwise, that if Venus truly is a newcomer to the Solar System, that the surface temperatures would be unexplainably high.


Hans: Yes he said a planet closer to the sun would be warmer.... because it had popped out of Jupiter - of course it would have been been molten - when he said hot he meant recently molten.

He just made a guess based on his theory - which is really seriously stupid, but then he didn't have physics background. I hope you're not going to suggest he was right about where Venus came from? ...and that it was bouncing around the innter solar system just a few thousand years ago....Hey when I was 11 I said Pluto would be cold...I guess that makes me a genius! LOL

....and this doesn't have anything to do with ancient civilizations does it?



As I thought. And I don't have any of my reference material at this location, or I'd give you a bit of education.


Hans: Really an education on the failures of Velikovsky and his theories as they relate to ancient civilizations and maps? Velikovsky theories died decades ago - haven't you been reading? Seriously are you trying to say they haven't been looke at and rejected?



I don't consider your opinion as highly as you seem to hold your opinion. So I am compelled to reduce your level of expertise to that of "opinion."


Hans: Opinions backed by fact. Here is an exercise for you. Try and figure out what Velikovsky has to do with Atlantis' exclusion from ancient maps.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
well don't peg me as someone who's choosing sides but let me just throw this in there and then run the hell out as fast as possible.

the OP's question was something like, how come older maps don't mention atlantis. right?

umm.. the atlantic ocean?

am i missing something?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join